|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 18, 2014 21:22:48 GMT -5
Nathan, I couldn't help but chuckle at the explanation. When God made man and women out of dust, the woman disobeyed so it was decided by god to make another woman that would be more submissive to the man, presumably because she came from the man's rib. Obviously he first made man and woman equal and when the woman acted like Adam she was condemned and accused of disobedience. Can't have that now can we... However, by making woman from a man's rib that was created from dust, how does this change anything. In a round about way the woman is still being made from dust because the rib was a man that was made from dust. And, it didn't prevent the church from blaming Eve for the downfall of man and the eventual need for Jesus to sacrifice his life. What seems to be left out in all of this is that Adam was 'equally' disobedient. It must just be a human thing? Not just a 'woman' thing? Should we tell Nathan what the real problem was with Lilith?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 18, 2014 21:26:37 GMT -5
Nathan, I couldn't help but chuckle at the explanation. When God made man and women out of dust, the woman disobeyed so it was decided by god to make another woman that would be more submissive to the man, presumably because she came from the man's rib. Obviously he first made man and woman equal and when the woman acted like Adam she was condemned and accused of disobedience. Can't have that now can we... However, by making woman from a man's rib that was created from dust, how does this change anything. In a round about way the woman is still being made from dust because the rib was a man that was made from dust. And, it didn't prevent the church from blaming Eve for the downfall of man and the eventual need for Jesus to sacrifice his life. What seems to be left out in all of this is that Adam was 'equally' disobedient. It must just be a human thing? Not just a 'woman' thing? Just passed through my thoughts that it makes sense that since "Eve" was the disobedient one that is why the "darkness" is what sinners or evil workers look to cover their nefarious deeds! "Eve" is the beginning of the night, isn't it? But it only works in English. But then, God does speak English, doesn't he.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 18, 2014 21:33:00 GMT -5
Nathan, I couldn't help but chuckle at the explanation. When God made man and women out of dust, the woman disobeyed so it was decided by god to make another woman that would be more submissive to the man, presumably because she came from the man's rib. Obviously he first made man and woman equal and when the woman acted like Adam she was condemned and accused of disobedience. Can't have that now can we... However, by making woman from a man's rib that was created from dust, how does this change anything. In a round about way the woman is still being made from dust because the rib was a man that was made from dust. And, it didn't prevent the church from blaming Eve for the downfall of man and the eventual need for Jesus to sacrifice his life. What seems to be left out in all of this is that Adam was 'equally' disobedient. It must just be a human thing? Not just a 'woman' thing? Should we tell Nathan what the real problem was with Lilith? Ha, maybe not! I thought she was a woman way beyond her time...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 18, 2014 21:34:23 GMT -5
Every time I heard the name on Fraser when Neils was married to Lilith I thought of our 'first lady'.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 18, 2014 21:46:15 GMT -5
Should we tell Nathan what the real problem was with Lilith? Ha, maybe not! I thought she was a woman way beyond her time... My kind of woman. heeheeheehee
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 19, 2014 9:34:14 GMT -5
Just passed through my thoughts that it makes sense that since "Eve" was the disobedient one that is why the "darkness" is what sinners or evil workers look to cover their nefarious deeds! "Eve" is the beginning of the night, isn't it? But it only works in English. But then, God does speak English, doesn't he. Well, Bob, the bible says that God mixed up the people's languages, etc when they were into building a tower to heaven! So I'd think God is more then multi-lingual!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 19, 2014 9:40:35 GMT -5
No problem, which story do you think it's a myth? I think they all were. The story of the earth being created in 6 days, the world wide flood, the way humans were created. The exodus out of Egypt also since there is no documentation of all the supposed plagues that rained down on the Egyptians. Even the way they tried to make their small tribal clans into large kingdoms. Archaeology does not support those things. That's how I see it anyway. As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 19, 2014 9:49:44 GMT -5
Just passed through my thoughts that it makes sense that since "Eve" was the disobedient one that is why the "darkness" is what sinners or evil workers look to cover their nefarious deeds! "Eve" is the beginning of the night, isn't it? ;) Probably the definition many think of but: eve - Not everyone was dancing on the eve of the French Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 19, 2014 15:16:10 GMT -5
I think they all were. The story of the earth being created in 6 days, the world wide flood, the way humans were created. The exodus out of Egypt also since there is no documentation of all the supposed plagues that rained down on the Egyptians. Even the way they tried to make their small tribal clans into large kingdoms. Archaeology does not support those things. That's how I see it anyway. As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible. But of course, in the Bible a new day starts at sunset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 15:30:46 GMT -5
I think they all were. The story of the earth being created in 6 days, the world wide flood, the way humans were created. The exodus out of Egypt also since there is no documentation of all the supposed plagues that rained down on the Egyptians. Even the way they tried to make their small tribal clans into large kingdoms. Archaeology does not support those things. That's how I see it anyway. As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible. i am open to creation being 6,000 years long but whats wrong with 6 days? if hes all powerful he can do anything can he not?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 19, 2014 16:04:20 GMT -5
As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible. i am open to creation being 6,000 years long but whats wrong with 6 days? if hes all powerful he can do anything can he not? I think the difference is though, that we have found that he didn't do it that way. There is too much evidence that the earth is very old and our species is relatively new on the scene in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 19, 2014 17:31:57 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why God supposedly made the animals male and female but created Adam without a mate. My Catholic friend... BTW, where is St Anne these days?... believes God created sex... (testicles and sperm and the woman's egg) at the same time he created Eve. (Funny that animals had the ability to impregnate and give birth.) There was no need for Adam to have testicles or sperm if there was no Eve. This, of course, is leaving Lilith out of the story as she does not appear in the current version of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 19, 2014 17:55:11 GMT -5
As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible. i am open to creation being 6,000 years long but whats wrong with 6 days? if hes all powerful he can do anything can he not? But His reputation for being "all powerful" becomes a problem when He is also supposed to be loving and "all knowing"; and "created everything".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 19, 2014 18:15:40 GMT -5
I think they all were. The story of the earth being created in 6 days, the world wide flood, the way humans were created. The exodus out of Egypt also since there is no documentation of all the supposed plagues that rained down on the Egyptians. Even the way they tried to make their small tribal clans into large kingdoms. Archaeology does not support those things. That's how I see it anyway. As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible. Yes, that argument has often been used by people who have trouble believing that life evolved.
Many other peoples of the earth have their own "creation" stories.
The Zulu The Norse the Navajo' the Egyptians the Aborigine
Many, many others!
Other people weren't aware of the other civilizations at that time, -so naturally their creation stories varied. Now we know nearly all of the other civilizations. You would think that by now we would understand why people have different creation stories and more important WHY they were created.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 20, 2014 9:55:51 GMT -5
As it explains in the bible that a day to God can be a thousand years or a thousand years be a day! So I'd don't read the beginning of man or other life forms as being done in 6 days, but I read them as being done in the "day" as God would see it.....often when using our measure of time we put too many bands on such things to where it doesn't make sense! Just at God has said His ways are not our ways, our thoughts are not His thoughts. Furthermore, it seems that the "sunlight" has little effect in heaven....according to the last chapters in Revs. There is NO day nor night in heaven.....so since all the creation has been done by someone residing in heaven, I'd say that perhaps mankind has put too many brakes on the time reported in the first book of the bible. i am open to creation being 6,000 years long but whats wrong with 6 days? if hes all powerful he can do anything can he not? Yes, Wally! That's more or less the point I was trying to make...God is not to be confined in the tine zones of man NOR in the strength of man! Just like we tend to curtail His abilities to making only one pair of adults instead of realizing that the ones we read about are the ones who a point was being made about or perhaps more then one point! In gumption one would have to understand that in order for people to procreated and populate the earth that it was going to have to be more then ONE couple...there at least would have to be wives for their sons, etc We have no idea the powers of God and we cannot even begin to imagine them! And I'm often glad about that for it humbles us, usually, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 20, 2014 10:00:09 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why God supposedly made the animals male and female but created Adam without a mate. My Catholic friend... BTW, where is St Anne these days?... believes God created sex... (testicles and sperm and the woman's egg) at the same time he created Eve. (Funny that animals had the ability to impregnate and give birth.) There was no need for Adam to have testicles or sperm if there was no Eve. This, of course, is leaving Lilith out of the story as she does not appear in the current version of the Bible. Was Lilith perhaps a product of Nepthilim? I mean the angels who came down to earth and didn't return to heaven and they desired to marry with the women of the earth...but of course then we'd have to have more then one man wouldn't we? But perhaps the angels ARE God's way of providing wives/husbands for those first generations or so....I don't know, but anything is supposed to be possible with God. As to the sex thing, I think that Adam has his gonads and fleshly needs and this is when God saw that Adam was "lonely" and He gave him Eve, who also had whatever gonads were appropriate to complement Adam's! Something of that ilk, eh?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2014 10:03:53 GMT -5
No problem, which story do you think it's a myth? I think they all were. The story of the earth being created in 6 days, the world wide flood, the way humans were created. The exodus out of Egypt also since there is no documentation of all the supposed plagues that rained down on the Egyptians. Even the way they tried to make their small tribal clans into large kingdoms. Archaeology does not support those things. That's how I see it anyway. Snow ~ Here's one explanation for the 10 plagues recorded in Exodus. Also, on the topic of the Exodus, there's a You-tube video that seemingly explained how this happened, from what I remember in the past.
www.theweeklyconstitutional.com/news/we-cant-explain-it/458-scientist-prove-the-ten-plagues-of-egypt-really-did-happen
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybkr0IMIv3Y
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 20, 2014 10:18:35 GMT -5
i am open to creation being 6,000 years long but whats wrong with 6 days? if hes all powerful he can do anything can he not? Yes, Wally! That's more or less the point I was trying to make...God is not to be confined in the tine zones of man NOR in the strength of man! Just like we tend to curtail His abilities to making only one pair of adults instead of realizing that the ones we read about are the ones who a point was being made about or perhaps more then one point! In gumption one would have to understand that in order for people to procreated and populate the earth that it was going to have to be more then ONE couple...there at least would have to be wives for their sons, etc We have no idea the powers of God and we cannot even begin to imagine them! And I'm often glad about that for it humbles us, usually, eh? Of course this all can make sense. An omnipotent being could create the earth in 6 seconds and the order of creation is not an issue. The layers of the earth and the radioactive compounds found within them could have been created to provide the illusion that they were created over billions of years. And Eve and the next 5 generations could well have been equipped with a reproductive system that had an output on the order of a XM196. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 20, 2014 11:08:34 GMT -5
I really don't see that to be plausible. If the plagues happened as they outline, they definitely would not have just affected the Egyptians. Also, why would just that portion of the Nile become slow moving and grow algae that made the water toxic and appear to be red like blood? The nile is not a small river and so it would have effected all settlements on it. We don't see that. We also don't hear of any record by the Egyptians that these things happened and if they did, you can bet they would have. They recorded everything. Also, the Hebrew people are said to have numbered in the millions. There is no record of the Egyptians losing that number of slaves. Losing that number of workers would have impacted them greatly, yet we don't have any record of it. Their wanderings with so many people would have also left some sort of archaeological footprint, yet we don't see anything that indicates that many people. The Hebrew people were not a large kingdom, but rather a few desert tribes. They spent more time in captivity to the powerful nations that surrounded them then actually a Kingdom of their own that was of any consequence. So, while these plagues could have a natural 'act of God' basis, it is highly unlikely because there really is not record made by the Egyptians and if all those horrible things happened to them you can bet it would be written down somewhere. Other than the Bible that is.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2014 11:49:09 GMT -5
Snow ~ I agree with everything you said on this topic of the Exodus. However, I was just sharing what some creationist claiming to be a scientist said about the matter. I really think a lot of these stories from the Old Testament came from Sumerian legends passed down with a new twist added to them. JMT The short clip concerning the 10 different plagues really seem like something out of a horror movie, don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 12:00:45 GMT -5
I really don't see that to be plausible. If the plagues happened as they outline, they definitely would not have just affected the Egyptians. Also, why would just that portion of the Nile become slow moving and grow algae that made the water toxic and appear to be red like blood? The nile is not a small river and so it would have effected all settlements on it. We don't see that. We also don't hear of any record by the Egyptians that these things happened and if they did, you can bet they would have. They recorded everything. Also, the Hebrew people are said to have numbered in the millions. There is no record of the Egyptians losing that number of slaves. Losing that number of workers would have impacted them greatly, yet we don't have any record of it. Their wanderings with so many people would have also left some sort of archaeological footprint, yet we don't see anything that indicates that many people. The Hebrew people were not a large kingdom, but rather a few desert tribes. They spent more time in captivity to the powerful nations that surrounded them then actually a Kingdom of their own that was of any consequence. So, while these plagues could have a natural 'act of God' basis, it is highly unlikely because there really is not record made by the Egyptians and if all those horrible things happened to them you can bet it would be written down somewhere. Other than the Bible that is. egyptians were known for not recording defeats of any kind in their history... there is some small archeological findings in Simcha Jacobovici movie about the exodus...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 20, 2014 12:28:22 GMT -5
I really don't see that to be plausible. If the plagues happened as they outline, they definitely would not have just affected the Egyptians. Also, why would just that portion of the Nile become slow moving and grow algae that made the water toxic and appear to be red like blood? The nile is not a small river and so it would have effected all settlements on it. We don't see that. We also don't hear of any record by the Egyptians that these things happened and if they did, you can bet they would have. They recorded everything. Also, the Hebrew people are said to have numbered in the millions. There is no record of the Egyptians losing that number of slaves. Losing that number of workers would have impacted them greatly, yet we don't have any record of it. Their wanderings with so many people would have also left some sort of archaeological footprint, yet we don't see anything that indicates that many people. The Hebrew people were not a large kingdom, but rather a few desert tribes. They spent more time in captivity to the powerful nations that surrounded them then actually a Kingdom of their own that was of any consequence. So, while these plagues could have a natural 'act of God' basis, it is highly unlikely because there really is not record made by the Egyptians and if all those horrible things happened to them you can bet it would be written down somewhere. Other than the Bible that is. egyptians were known for not recording defeats of any kind in their history... there is some small archeological findings in Simcha Jacobovici movie about the exodus... Military defeats but you can be sure something of this scale would have been noted. If nothing else we would see a huge drop in their economic gain. You can't lose several million slaves and not have an impact on economy. That would have been recorded because they kept very good track of all their crops, sales, etc. That isn't documenting a defeat, but merely documenting the outcome of day to day life. So I don't buy the apologist response that they didn't document defeats. There are other ways to determine blows to a society.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 20, 2014 13:15:29 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why God supposedly made the animals male and female but created Adam without a mate. My Catholic friend... BTW, where is St Anne these days?... believes God created sex... (testicles and sperm and the woman's egg) at the same time he created Eve. (Funny that animals had the ability to impregnate and give birth.) There was no need for Adam to have testicles or sperm if there was no Eve. This, of course, is leaving Lilith out of the story as she does not appear in the current version of the Bible. Was Lilith perhaps a product of Nepthilim? I mean the angels who came down to earth and didn't return to heaven and they desired to marry with the women of the earth...but of course then we'd have to have more then one man wouldn't we? But perhaps the angels ARE God's way of providing wives/husbands for those first generations or so....I don't know, but anything is supposed to be possible with God. As to the sex thing, I think that Adam has his gonads and fleshly needs and this is when God saw that Adam was "lonely" and He gave him Eve, who also had whatever gonads were appropriate to complement Adam's! Something of that ilk, eh? Do you believe this, or are you just speculating? You do know, I presume, that divine creatures coming down to earth to mate with humans is Pagan, not Biblical. Christians seem not to even like that phraseology when it is applied to Jesus conception, but Pagans have always made such claims.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 20, 2014 13:19:23 GMT -5
Was Lilith perhaps a product of Nepthilim? I mean the angels who came down to earth and didn't return to heaven and they desired to marry with the women of the earth...but of course then we'd have to have more then one man wouldn't we? But perhaps the angels ARE God's way of providing wives/husbands for those first generations or so....I don't know, but anything is supposed to be possible with God. As to the sex thing, I think that Adam has his gonads and fleshly needs and this is when God saw that Adam was "lonely" and He gave him Eve, who also had whatever gonads were appropriate to complement Adam's! Something of that ilk, eh? Do you believe this, or are you just speculating? You do know, I presume, that divine creatures coming down to earth to mate with humans is Pagan, not Biblical. Christians seem not to even like that phraseology when it is applied to Jesus conception, but Pagans have always made such claims. No they don't even understand most of the time how pagan it is for a God to impregnate a Virgin.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 20, 2014 13:29:03 GMT -5
Do you believe this, or are you just speculating? You do know, I presume, that divine creatures coming down to earth to mate with humans is Pagan, not Biblical. Christians seem not to even like that phraseology when it is applied to Jesus conception, but Pagans have always made such claims. No they don't even understand most of the time how pagan it is for a God to impregnate a Virgin. I often wonder how people who convert from other religions to Christianity or Islam and buy into the virgin birth concept. Do they convert for the lifestyle and morals, or do they buy into the theology? I know people who have come from other denominations and professed in the 2x2s and they certainly have not done so because of the belief system. I do know what I am working up to here.......
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 20, 2014 13:36:47 GMT -5
No they don't even understand most of the time how pagan it is for a God to impregnate a Virgin. I often wonder how people who convert from other religions to Christianity or Islam and buy into the virgin birth concept. Do they convert for the lifestyle and morals, or do they buy into the theology? I know people who have come from other denominations and professed in the 2x2s and they certainly have not done so because of the belief system. I do know what I am working up to here....... A lot of the time it doesn't matter the history or even the morality of something. It is more a 'heart' choice it seems when it comes to religion. If it speaks to them then it must be right. Because it is spiritual, non factual, and doesn't require logic, it is okay to trust your heart. After all defining religion using logic is not doable anyway. So I think if something resonates with them in their heart they will follow it regardless of the history, the morality of some in the group etc. JMT
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 20, 2014 13:49:32 GMT -5
I often wonder how people who convert from other religions to Christianity or Islam and buy into the virgin birth concept. Do they convert for the lifestyle and morals, or do they buy into the theology? I know people who have come from other denominations and professed in the 2x2s and they certainly have not done so because of the belief system. I do know what I am working up to here....... A lot of the time it doesn't matter the history or even the morality of something. It is more a 'heart' choice it seems when it comes to religion. If it speaks to them then it must be right. Because it is spiritual, non factual, and doesn't require logic, it is okay to trust your heart. After all defining religion using logic is not doable anyway. So I think if something resonates with them in their heart they will follow it regardless of the history, the morality of some in the group etc. JMT This is true, especially of modern-day Westerners at least. Religion is about a whatever-kind-of-personal relationship with "Christ" in the company of likewise sensual individuals. Where the belief system originated is not a great matter of importance.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 20, 2014 14:02:21 GMT -5
As to the sex thing, I think that Adam has his gonads and fleshly needs and this is when God saw that Adam was "lonely" and He gave him Eve, who also had whatever gonads were appropriate to complement Adam's! Something of that ilk, eh? But why would Adam need gonads and fleshly needs if he did not have a mate?
|
|