Who can answer a vexing question I have from the book of Genesis.

General » Religion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Who can answer a vexing question I have from the book of Genesis. (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 7/30/2005 8:50:10 PM EDT

Someone who knows this book.

I have two questions that I would like answered to the best of someone's ability based on their religious education.

no

here.

Posted: 7/30/2005 9:41:08 PM EDT

[#1]

Who can answer a vexing question I have from the book of Genesis.

That's your title, but it makes you look like an attention-hungry

in light of your post's content (or lack thereof). You ask that question, yet you don't pose the question the title references. So how could anyone know whether they are qualified to answer it or not? Why are you wasting our time?

What are the questions, and why do you want them answered? Has your personal search for answers turned up dry? Whatever the case may be, I couldn't get to it until tomorrow.

Posted: 7/30/2005 10:02:16 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
What is the question, and why do you want it answered? Has your personal search for answers turned up dry? Whatever the case may be, I couln't get to it untill tomorrow, but I am sure someone here can help.

ok, here is the first one.

According to all the versions of the bible, its read that God made Adam, then later took a rib and created a woman, to whom Adam named Eve.

Now Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel.

now according to Genesis 17..

17. Later, Cain and his wife had a son named Enoch. At the time Cain was building a town, and so he named it Enoch after his son. 18 Then Enoch had a son named Irad, who had a son named Mehujael, who had a son named Methushael, who had a son named Lamech.

etc..

where did Cain's wife come from? There is no mention of the creation of Cain's wife.
Also, there is no mention of Irad's wife, nor Mahejael's wife, nor methushael's wife.
Where did these women come from? If all mankind came from one couple, Adam and Eve, who had three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth, where did the other women come from?

Also this passage..

23 One day, Lamech said to his two wives, "A young man wounded me, and I killed him. 24 Anyone who tries to get even with me will be punished ten times more than anyone who tries to get even with Cain."

Lamech had TWO WIVES? I didn't know this.

additionally,

Genesis 6

The LORD Will Send a Flood
1 -2More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings [a] came down and married the ones they wanted. 3Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years." [c] 4The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later.

Supernatural beings? What supernatural beings? there is no mention of the creation of supernatural beings.

Where did these women, with whom Adam's decendents had children with, come from?

Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, then??? where did the ladies come from?

Posted: 7/30/2005 10:13:14 PM EDT

[#3]

Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Posted: 7/30/2005 10:43:47 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Ok, I understand that Adam and Eve had more than two children, including some daughters.
Since Adam and Eve were a couple, then their offspring were sons and daughters...

you see the quandry?

Did their children have children together?

And whats up with these "Supernatural beings" as mentioned in Genesis 6.

There is no mention previous to this that God had buddies.

Posted: 7/30/2005 10:54:45 PM EDT

[#5]

read Acts 17:26, Lk. 1:37

Although Cain and his sister were very closely related, Adam and Eve could be considered even closer. Although Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all subsequent humans, Eve herself was actually created from a part of Adam, in a process that scientists today might call a sort of "cloning" (Adam and Eve were likely quite similar in appearance), so, in a way, genetically, Adam married himself.

Later, once humanity was established, marriage rules were put in place. Leviticus 18:6-18

LB

Posted: 7/30/2005 11:11:30 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
read Acts 17:26, Lk. 1:37

Although Cain and his sister were very closely related, Adam and Eve could be considered even closer. Although Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all subsequent humans, Eve herself was actually created from a part of Adam, in a process that scientists today might call a sort of "cloning" (Adam and Eve were likely quite similar in appearance), so, in a way, genetically, Adam married himself.

Later, once humanity was established, marriage rules were put in place. Leviticus 18:6-18

LB

thanks for clearing that up. I understand this part.

Now how about the mention of supernatural beings coming down to have children with some of the most beautiful of the women.

Posted: 7/31/2005 4:22:00 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
read Acts 17:26, Lk. 1:37

Although Cain and his sister were very closely related, Adam and Eve could be considered even closer. Although Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all subsequent humans, Eve herself was actually created from a part of Adam, in a process that scientists today might call a sort of "cloning" (Adam and Eve were likely quite similar in appearance), so, in a way, genetically, Adam married himself.

Later, once humanity was established, marriage rules were put in place. Leviticus 18:6-18

LB

thanks for clearing that up. I understand this part.

Now how about the mention of supernatural beings coming down to have children with some of the most beautiful of the women.

I don't think you'll find the answer to this one in the Bible, but you might in angel lore. The story goes that God sent angels down to earth to watch his new creations. They're called, surprisingly enough, Watcher angels. Some of them became so enamoured of the women that they fell and knocked boots, so to speak, with them.

As far as Adam and Eve? The "left side" thing is all over mythology. It's symbolic. Eve was taken from Adam's left side, Christ was pierced in his left side, it is said that the Buddha was born of his mother's left side... so on and so forth.

Trying to interpret this myth in particular with any sort of scientific credibility is near impossible. How viable can a gene pool be when there are only two people *and* they happen to have the same DNA? It's a metaphor, people.

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:40:02 AM EDT

[#8]

The story of Adam and Eve is a story that is intended to make a point.

Like a parable.

It isn't historically accurate.

YMMV

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 10:16:49 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
The story of Adam and Eve is a story that is intended to make a point.

Like a parable.

It isn't historically accurate.

YMMV

Sgat1r5

well if the first book isn't historically accurate, then how is one to believe the rest is?

Posted: 7/31/2005 10:25:45 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
well if the first book isn't historically accurate, then how is one to believe the rest is?

Lots of the Book isn't Historically accurate, but then again, it isn't a History Book.

And it is wriitten in 4 differant styles, you first must understand that.

SGatr15

Posted: 7/31/2005 10:49:18 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
well if the first book isn't historically accurate, then how is one to believe the rest is?

Lots of the Book isn't Historically accurate, but then again, it isn't a History Book.

And it is wriitten in 4 differant styles, you first must understand that.

SGatr15

i've got an open mind SGatr15, so please enlighten me. What are the 4 different styles?

Also getting back to your previous statements, "Lots of the Book isn't historically accurate"
If the book isn't historically accurate, because I assume, it is a retelling of stories long told throught the generations of storytellers, then its safe to assume that some of the content is subject to the ol "fishing trip" style of tales passed on from father to son to son, etc.

If, by your statement and the teachings of more learned theologins, it would be very easy to surmise that if one or more chapters in the Book are not accurate, then the whole of the book could be subject to the same interpretation you just pointed out.

believe me when I say I am not anti-religious, nor am I a religion hater. I am just more cynical and not easily led down a path to where my lifestyle, way of being, beliefs, etc are dictated to me through a faith in a book that is subject to revisionist history story telling.

Blind faith is fine for some, but there will always be the doubters. History has proven that this is the best method for growth...one way or another.

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:02:20 AM EDT

[#12]

The Bible is written as History (life of Jesus) Parable( The prodical son), Fable with a message (garden of Eden) and.....and I always forgfet the forth style.

It requires studing, the Bible is a text book for life and salvation after all.

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:02:55 AM EDT

[#13]

ANd I do very little on faith alone.

I need results.

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:03:27 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
The story of Adam and Eve is a story that is intended to make a point.

Like a parable.

It isn't historically accurate.

YMMV

Sgat1r5

Sgat1r5,

furthermore, if the Book of Genesis isn't historically accurate, a parable, etc, then isn't it in this book that the very foundation of Creation is established?

By your own words, a true believer, and one I respect, the whole tale of creation is quite possibly, not accurate.

Now I will ask you this question directly. What do you interprete the tale of "supernatural beings" to mean?

I am more inclined to think the following...

There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. That they may have been the architects of the great pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive far, far away, amongst the stars."

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:03:53 AM EDT

[#15]

You think you are confused now....reread the book of Genesis and pay more attention. There are TWO human creation stories. Which one is our s? Created from the mud or just created? And this whole idea that some parts are just "stories" and some are truth is even more confusing. Now if this section we are discussing is just a parable, then how do we accept the blooline of Iesus, when it is discussed later? Or David and the big hairy angel descendant?

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:04:32 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
well if the first book isn't historically accurate, then how is one to believe the rest is?

Lots of the Book isn't Historically accurate, but then again, it isn't a History Book.

And it is wriitten in 4 differant styles, you first must understand that.

SGatr15

And if sin didn't really come into the world through one man, how are we supposed to believe that one man could take it away? Or was that just symbolic too?

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:14:02 AM EDT

[#17]

I didn't say ALL of Genesis isn't Historically accurate, just the story of Adam and Eve.

And the point of the story is what is important anyways.

SGatr15

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:15:14 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

And if sin didn't really come into the world through one man, how are we supposed to believe that one man could take it away? Or was that just symbolic too?

Sin came from the Devil. And Jesus was not just a man, He is God.

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:23:16 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The story of Adam and Eve is a story that is intended to make a point.

Like a parable.

It isn't historically accurate.

YMMV

Sgat1r5

I have always loved this arguement. The Bible is parabolic or symbolic or this or that was intended metaphoricly while at the same time they maintain that the Bible is the absolute truth. Well which is it really?

Oh when it says a day in Genisis it really means a period of time, well a second is a period of time isn't it? So is an era and a century. So did God create the Universe in 6 seconds, 6 days, 60 years, 6 centuries?

Did Cain and Able take their own sisters as wives? Kinda takes the edge off all those inbreeding hick jokes doesn't it.

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:25:29 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

I have always loved this arguement. The Bible is parabolic or symbolic or this or that was intended metaphoricly while at the same time they maintain that the Bible is the absolute truth. Well which is it really?

Oh when it says a day in Genisis it really means a period of time, well a second is a period of time isn't it? So is an era and a century. So did God create the Universe in 6 seconds, 6 days, 60 years, 6 centuries?

Did Cain and Able take their own sisters as wives? Kinda takes the edge off all those inbreeding hick jokes doesn't it.

No, it doesn't change anything. Once you understand HOW and WHY the Bible was written the message is much clearer.

If you are not willing to do this then you will never get the message.

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:42:53 AM EDT

[#21]

Adam was not the first man. These are two separate events. Adam was created because there was not a man to till the ground. The people that were here first were hunters and gatherers. There were clearly people before Adam. Forget the crap people tell you and read it with comprehension. It is so simple a child could understand it.

Ge 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

Ge 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:46:40 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:

And if sin didn't really come into the world through one man, how are we supposed to believe that one man could take it away? Or was that just symbolic too?

Sin came from the Devil. And Jesus was not just a man, He is God.

Sgat1r5

I thought Jesus was the son of God. After all, didn't God create all, then later on down the road, he caused Mary to become pregnant, thus the virgin mary? and the virgin birth. If you say Jesus is god, then who created everything before jesus was born?

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:50:08 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Ok, I understand that Adam and Eve had more than two children, including some daughters.
Since Adam and Eve were a couple, then their offspring were sons and daughters...

you see the quandry?

Did their children have children together?

And whats up with these "Supernatural beings" as mentioned in Genesis 6.

There is no mention previous to this that God had buddies.

Cain married his sister.

The supernatural beings you refer to were not supernatural. The giants, etc. refer to the powerful people of that time.

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:53:16 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

And if sin didn't really come into the world through one man, how are we supposed to believe that one man could take it away? Or was that just symbolic too?

Sin came from the Devil. And Jesus was not just a man, He is God.

Sgat1r5

I thought Jesus was the son of God. After all, didn't God create all, then later on down the road, he caused Mary to become pregnant, thus the virgin mary? and the virgin birth. If you say Jesus is god, then who created everything before jesus was born?

Jesus existed before he was born as man. He is referenced many times in the old testament. You have to seperate your existance as a man from your soul. Your soul has been here since the beginning. If you want to keep it thats up to you.

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:54:41 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

No, it doesn't change anything. Once you understand HOW and WHY the Bible was written the message is much clearer.

If you are not willing to do this then you will never get the message.

Sgat1r5

I guess that is all base rather largely on your definition of understanding and the readers propensity to accept things that are non sequitur.

Posted: 7/31/2005 11:57:36 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Adam was not the first man. These are two separate events. Adam was created because there was not a man to till the ground. The people that were here first were hunters and gatherers. There were clearly people before Adam. Forget the crap people tell you and read it with comprehension. It is so simple a child could understand it.

Ge 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

Ge 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

GE 1:26, " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

US and OUR?

So god did have some buddies around, since the words US and OUR are used.

So this goes along way to prove in black and white, that Aliens did infact start the whole spark of life on our little rock. So some extremely advanced Botonists, geologists, zoologists, etc started life here.

After all, if one went back 10000 years and simply brought a bic lighter, a rifle, a pair of two way radioes, etc and showed the men of that day, wouldn't he then be considered a god, worthy of fear, worship, etc. No go even further, if a seriously advanced group of extra terestrials came down to earth right now, who were completely benign, and showed us how to cure all man's diseases, conflict, strif, hunger and famine, etc, wouldn't they be then considered GODS by more primitive cultures still on earth. What if the dead could be brought back to life via technology that is 1000's or even millions of years more advanced than our own. Wouldn't we look upon them with wonderment?

How is the above theory more far fetched than that told of creationism and God, and angels, etc.

Posted: 7/31/2005 12:02:02 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Ok, I understand that Adam and Eve had more than two children, including some daughters.
Since Adam and Eve were a couple, then their offspring were sons and daughters...

you see the quandry?

Did their children have children together?

And whats up with these "Supernatural beings" as mentioned in Genesis 6.

There is no mention previous to this that God had buddies.

Cain married his sister.

The supernatural beings you refer to were not supernatural. The giants, etc. refer to the powerful people of that time.

alaman,

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings [a] came down and married the ones they wanted. "

Its right there in the bible. Supernatural beings CAME DOWN. they were not already walking the land, were powerful humans via their weath and stature. So your explanation makes no sense and goes completely against the words of the bible. Or are the words in the bible STILL subject to the interpretations of those who read it. If the bible is the word of GOD, then by its vary nature, shall not be suject to the interpretations and explanations and clarifications of MAN.

Posted: 7/31/2005 12:07:16 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

And if sin didn't really come into the world through one man, how are we supposed to believe that one man could take it away? Or was that just symbolic too?

Sin came from the Devil. And Jesus was not just a man, He is God.

Sgat1r5

I thought Jesus was the son of God. After all, didn't God create all, then later on down the road, he caused Mary to become pregnant, thus the virgin mary? and the virgin birth. If you say Jesus is god, then who created everything before jesus was born?

Jesus existed before he was born as man. He is referenced many times in the old testament. You have to seperate your existance as a man from your soul. Your soul has been here since the beginning. If you want to keep it thats up to you.

Alreadythere.

explain away this then please.

For god gave us his only begotten son, ie Jesus..

and didn't Jesus cry out on the cross.

" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

I am going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are a Mormon since you refer to the fact that ones soul was there from the very beginning?

What denomination believes in " The Father, The Son, and the holy spirit "

Posted: 7/31/2005 12:15:30 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Adam was not the first man. These are two separate events. Adam was created because there was not a man to till the ground. The people that were here first were hunters and gatherers. There were clearly people before Adam. Forget the crap people tell you and read it with comprehension. It is so simple a child could understand it.

perhaps only a child is the target audience. Certainly not a grown adult who can ask persuasive and valid questions to the truth and verasity of what they are told and read

Additionally,

Genesis 4
Cain Murders Abel
1Adam [a] and Eve had a son. Then Eve said, "I'll name him Cain because I got him with the help of the LORD." 2Later she had another son and named him Abel. Abel became a sheep farmer, but Cain farmed the land. 3One day, Cain gave part of his harvest to the LORD, 4and Abel also gave an offering to the LORD. He killed the first-born lamb from one of his sheep and gave the LORD the best parts of it. The LORD was pleased with Abel and his offering, 5but not with Cain and his offering. This made Cain so angry that he could not hide his feelings.

Adam was not created to til the ground. Cain farmed the land, and Abel was the sheep farmer.

I can see that this thread has done nothing more than to bring out Several different versions of the hostory of Man and Creation, as well as the different beliefs in who Jesus is, whether he is the Son of God, or God himself.

With soooo many different versions of the story, each and all subject to the interpretations and teachings of mortal man, its no wonder that there are soo many who think that the whole ideal is nothing more than fairy tale. The most published children's story in the history of history.

Posted: 7/31/2005 12:19:44 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Ok, I understand that Adam and Eve had more than two children, including some daughters.
Since Adam and Eve were a couple, then their offspring were sons and daughters...

you see the quandry?

Did their children have children together?

And whats up with these "Supernatural beings" as mentioned in Genesis 6.

There is no mention previous to this that God had buddies.

Cain married his sister.

The supernatural beings you refer to were not supernatural. The giants, etc. refer to the powerful people of that time.

alaman,

"Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings [a] came down and married the ones they wanted. "

Its right there in the bible. Supernatural beings CAME DOWN. they were not already walking the land, were powerful humans via their weath and stature. So your explanation makes no sense and goes completely against the words of the bible. Or are the words in the bible STILL subject to the interpretations of those who read it. If the bible is the word of GOD, then by its vary nature, shall not be suject to the interpretations and explanations and clarifications of MAN.

You are referring to the Sons of God and the Sons of Men discussed in Genesis 6:4. The Sons of God were those from the Godly line of Seth and were supposed to marry within that line. The Sons of Men were from Cain's line which was the ungodly line. This describes the mixing of the two lines. The powerful men that resulted were mighty men like the mass murdered Lemech described soon after. Really nothing supernatural about it. Has to be studied, especially in the Hebrew writings and explanations. Confused me too until I did that study.

Posted: 7/31/2005 12:57:18 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Jesus existed before he was born as man. He is referenced many times in the old testament. You have to seperate your existance as a man from your soul. Your soul has been here since the beginning. If you want to keep it thats up to you.

This is true, to an extent. The idea of the Christ, the Logos, the Word, does preexist that of Jesus even in gnostic literature, perhaps because of gnostic literature. The Gospel of John opens with "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." If I'm not mistaken, the Gospel of John is the only one to refer to Jesus as the Logos (I could be wrong about that). It is to be noted that the Gospel of John is the only part of the canon to be included in the Gnostic Bible.

Jesus Christ is actually two seperate ideas merged into a single figure representing True God and True Man; representing an intersection between divinity and humanity. This is to show us not what we may become, but what we already are.

Posted: 7/31/2005 1:15:40 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus existed before he was born as man. He is referenced many times in the old testament. You have to seperate your existance as a man from your soul. Your soul has been here since the beginning. If you want to keep it thats up to you.

This is true, to an extent. The idea of the Christ, the Logos, the Word, does preexist that of Jesus even in gnostic literature, perhaps because of gnostic literature. The Gospel of John opens with "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." If I'm not mistaken, the Gospel of John is the only one to refer to Jesus as the Logos (I could be wrong about that). It is to be noted that the Gospel of John is the only part of the canon to be included in the Gnostic Bible.

Jesus Christ is actually two seperate ideas merged into a single figure representing True God and True Man; representing an intersection between divinity and humanity. This is to show us not what we may become, but what we already are.

So by your statement, the whole notion of Jesus Christ was the son of God, and who was sacrificed for the sins of mankind, is completely false and that Jesus Christ is no more than a conglomeration of ideals that have taken a physical form in modern day theology.

So the very notion that there was a man born of virgin birth, who walked the land, proclaiming to be the son of God, healed the sick, brought forth wonderous displays of power before the kings and ruling party of the day, not to mention religious leaders, was persecuted by the Jews, and then crucified by the Romans, etc is not based on any fact, fiction or other method of explanation other than HE WAS SEPERATE IDEALS MERGED INTO A SINGLE FIGURE THROUGHOUT THE AGES.

So everyone, who believes in Jesus as a single physical person, are wrong, and have ben led down a path not in line with your way of thinking.

No wonder there will always be wars between the believers of such notions, and the rest of us on the outside wondering what the hell the fuss is all about.

Posted: 7/31/2005 1:22:30 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

I thought Jesus was the son of God. After all, didn't God create all, then later on down the road, he caused Mary to become pregnant, thus the virgin mary? and the virgin birth. If you say Jesus is god, then who created everything before jesus was born?

Honest question.

Have you EVER read ANY of the Bible or stepped into ANY church?

Because these are basic questions that evryone should know by the age of 18.

Jesus is God. In the Beginning was the Word. God was there in the begining.

See Holy Trinity under Google.

Or talk to a priest or someone here that can probably do a better job answereing your question. I am not the best Bible scholar to ask on the OT

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 1:24:28 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:

No, it doesn't change anything. Once you understand HOW and WHY the Bible was written the message is much clearer.

If you are not willing to do this then you will never get the message.

Sgat1r5

I guess that is all base rather largely on your definition of understanding and the readers propensity to accept things that are non sequitur.

No, it is based that if you want to learn about a certain subject it is wisest to read the referance material rather then the opinion of someone else who read the referance material.

Sgatr15

Posted: 7/31/2005 1:28:10 PM EDT

[#35]

Not "ideals"... IDEAS. True God and True Man in a single figure, there by bridging the gap between divinity and humanity.

Posted: 7/31/2005 2:01:06 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I thought Jesus was the son of God. After all, didn't God create all, then later on down the road, he caused Mary to become pregnant, thus the virgin mary? and the virgin birth. If you say Jesus is god, then who created everything before jesus was born?

Honest question.

Have you EVER read ANY of the Bible or stepped into ANY church?

Because these are basic questions that evryone should know by the age of 18.

Jesus is God. In the Beginning was the Word. God was there in the begining.

See Holy Trinity under Google.

Or talk to a priest or someone here that can probably do a better job answereing your question. I am not the best Bible scholar to ask on the OT

Sgat1r5

your interpretations of theword of christ and the bible are based on Catholosism, and thus only one of the many interpretations out there. I am sure a person of the jewish faith, or any other of the more mainstream christian denominations wouldn't agree that Jesus is God.

and to answer your other questions, I did attend church when I was younger, but I took a far more interest in astronomy, and the sciences. So I let religion go by the wayside. But you know what. I am not an immoral man, nor am I a bad person. I am raising a decent size family and pay my taxes. So much the theory that without the word of god in ones heart, you will stray from morality.

Additionally, I have southern babtists, mormons, and lutheren family members.

Its really fun at family gatherings. Especially when my wife is about to kick my ass when I bring up religion. LOL

anyways. I do believe this.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they do, and should not be ostrasized or persecuted for their beliefs. Would the world be a better place if everyone believed in that.

Posted: 7/31/2005 2:03:55 PM EDT

[#37]

I suspect if we were all able to read the texts in the languages they were written in, and had a knowledge of the culture from which the writers came, the Scriptures would be a lot easier to understand.

Carry on,

Gwen

Posted: 7/31/2005 2:41:25 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:

And if sin didn't really come into the world through one man, how are we supposed to believe that one man could take it away? Or was that just symbolic too?

Sin came from the Devil. And Jesus was not just a man, He is God.

Sgat1r5

So Paul was just blowing smoke in his letter to the Romans? Thanks for the clarification.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Romans 5:12-19

Posted: 7/31/2005 2:47:07 PM EDT

[#39]

JohnTheTexican,
by no means am I an expert on the OT or the NT. But that passage appears to state the sin came THRU Adam, not that he was the source of it.

Sgat1r5

Posted: 7/31/2005 5:07:13 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
ANd I do very little on faith alone.

I need results.

Sgat1r5

So how do you believe in these events without faith?

The immaculate conception?
The Resurrection ?
The Ascension ?

Posted: 7/31/2005 5:20:09 PM EDT

[#41]

ATTENTION ALL THOSE READING THIS THREAD!!!

None of the persons or events described in this thread are real. This thread is not meant to be an accurate representation of reality. It is just a story of spiritual "soul searching" meant to give you encouragement in your life journey.

Remember, it is just a story, like a parable.

YOU MAY NOW CONTINUE READING

Posted: 7/31/2005 5:24:18 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
ATTENTION ALL THOSE READING THIS THREAD!!!

None of the persons or events described in this thread are real. This thread is not meant to be an accurate representation of reality. It is just a story of spiritual "soul searching" meant to give you encouragement in your life journey.

Remember, it is just a story, like a parable.

YOU MAY NOW CONTINUE READING

So was this message computer generated

Posted: 7/31/2005 5:57:32 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
ATTENTION ALL THOSE READING THIS THREAD!!!

None of the persons or events described in this thread are real. This thread is not meant to be an accurate representation of reality. It is just a story of spiritual "soul searching" meant to give you encouragement in your life journey.

Remember, it is just a story, like a parable.

YOU MAY NOW CONTINUE READING

Richolland,

up until your post, this thread was very civil, and the participants were respectfull of each others views.

I am a non believer, but as I would expect others to respect my choice, I respect thier beliefs.

Posted: 7/31/2005 6:08:00 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
ATTENTION ALL THOSE READING THIS THREAD!!!

None of the persons or events described in this thread are real. This thread is not meant to be an accurate representation of reality. It is just a story of spiritual "soul searching" meant to give you encouragement in your life journey.

Remember, it is just a story, like a parable.

YOU MAY NOW CONTINUE READING

Richolland,

up until your post, this thread was very civil, and the participants were respectfull of each others views.

I am a non believer, but as I would expect others to respect my choice, I respect thier beliefs.

+1

As I was reading though this thread, I was thinking the same thing. I was planning on making a post saying as much.

I do still want to say that I'm impressed on how this discussion is going so far. Everyone is handling their disagreements in a polite and civil manner. Keep it up.

Posted: 7/31/2005 6:17:34 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATTENTION ALL THOSE READING THIS THREAD!!!

None of the persons or events described in this thread are real. This thread is not meant to be an accurate representation of reality. It is just a story of spiritual "soul searching" meant to give you encouragement in your life journey.

Remember, it is just a story, like a parable.

YOU MAY NOW CONTINUE READING

Richolland,

up until your post, this thread was very civil, and the participants were respectfull of each others views.

I am a non believer, but as I would expect others to respect my choice, I respect thier beliefs.

+1

As I was reading though this thread, I was thinking the same thing. I was planning on making a post saying as much.

I do still want to say that I'm impressed on how this discussion is going so far. Everyone is handling their disagreements in a polite and civil manner. Keep it up.

Guys -

I think he is parodying saying THIS THREAD isn't really happenning. Its all just in your imagination.

Posted: 7/31/2005 6:44:46 PM EDT

[#46]

ok, here is the first one.

According to all the versions of the bible, its read that God made Adam, then later took a rib (not rib Bible says curve, think DNA) and created a woman, to whom Adam named Eve.

Now Adam and Eve had Cain Cains father was not Adam, What did Satan due to Eve?and Abel.

now according to Genesis 17..

17. Later, Cain and his wife had a son named Enoch. At the time Cain was building a town, and so he named it Enoch after his son. 18 Then Enoch had a son named Irad, who had a son named Mehujael, who had a son named Methushael, who had a son named Lamech.

etc..

where did Cain's wife come from? 6th day manThere is no mention of the creation of Cain's wife.
Also, there is no mention of Irad's wife, nor Mahejael's wife, nor methushael's wife.
Where did these women come from? If all mankind came from one couple, Adam and Eve, who had three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth, where did the other women come from?

Also this passage..

23 One day, Lamech said to his two wives, "A young man wounded me, and I killed him. 24 Anyone who tries to get even with me will be punished ten times more than anyone who tries to get even with Cain."

Lamech had TWO WIVES? I didn't know this.

additionally,

Genesis 6

The LORD Will Send a Flood
1 -2More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings the angels that rebelled against GOD and refused to be born of women[a] came down and married the ones they wanted. 3Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years." [c] 4The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later. Anak, Og king of Baashan, Golith were Nephilim/Gibbor, the flood was to destroy the Nephilim,as they were not of Gods creation but of Satans and the fallen Angels attempt to destroy the blood line that Christ would come. Their was a second influx of Nephilim/Gibbor that the children of Israel were to put to the sword before taking up the promise land.

Supernatural beings? What supernatural beings? there is no mention of the creation of supernatural beings.

Where did these women, with whom Adam's decendents had children with, come from?

Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, then??? where did the ladies come from?

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:01:19 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Ok, I understand that Adam and Eve had more than two children, including some daughters.
Since Adam and Eve were a couple, then their offspring were sons and daughters...

you see the quandry?

Did their children have children together?

And whats up with these "Supernatural beings" as mentioned in Genesis 6.

There is no mention previous to this that God had buddies.

It would be obvious that thier children had children with each other. You re having a hard time figuring that out?

Other beings? Its accepted that the entire host of Angels was created before man.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:09:45 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
JohnTheTexican,
by no means am I an expert on the OT or the NT. But that passage appears to state the sin came THRU Adam, not that he was the source of it.

Sgat1r5

Right on.

Here is something that helped me.

APPENDIX B,
THE CASE OF ADAM

In our chapter on God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility we dealt only with the responsibility of man considered as a fallen creature, and at the close of the discussion it was pointed out how that the measure and extent of our responsibility varies in different individuals, according to the advantages they have received and the privileges they have enjoyed, which is a truth clearly established by the declaration of the Saviour recorded in Luke 12:47,48, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did not commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more".

Now, strictly speaking, there are only two men who have ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and unimpaired responsibility, and they were the first and last Adam's. The responsibility of each of the rational descendants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them accountable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall.

Not only is the responsibility of each descendant of Adam sufficient to constitute him, personally an accountable creature (that is, as one so constituted that he ought to do right and ought not to do wrong), but originally every one of us was also endowed, judicially, with full and unimpaired responsibility, not in ourselves, but, in Adam. It should ever be borne in mind that not only was Adam the father of the human race seminally, but he was also the head of the race legally. When Adam was placed in Eden he stood there as our representative, so that what he did is reckoned to the account of each for whom he acted.

It is beside our present purpose to enter here into a lengthy discussion of the Federal Headship of Adam {a}, suffice it now to refer the reader to Rom. 5:12-19 where this truth is dealt with by the Holy Spirit. In the heart of this most important passaGen. we are told that Adam was "the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:14), that is, of Christ. In what sense, then, was Adam "the figure" of Christ? The answer must be, In that he was a Federal Head; in that he acted on the behalf of a race of men; in that he was one who has legally, as well as vitally, affected all connected with him. It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus is in 1 Cor. 15:45 denominated "the last Adam", that is, the Head of the new creation, as the first Adam was the Head of the old creation.

In Adam, then, each of us stood. As the representative of the human race the first man acted. As then Adam was created with full and unimpaired responsibility, unimpaired because there was no evil nature within him; and as we were all "in Adam", it necessarily follows that all of us, originally, were also endowed with full and unimpaired responsibility. Therefore, in Eden, it was not merely the responsibility of Adam as a single person that was tested, but it was human responsibility, the responsibility of the race, as a whole and in part, which was on trial.

Webster defines responsibility first, as "liable to account"; second, as "able to discharGen. an obligation". perhaps. the meaning and scope of the term responsibility might be expressed and summed up in the one word oughtness. God-wards, responsibility respects that which is due the Creator from the creature, and which the creature is under moral obligations to render.

In the light of the above definition it is at once apparent that responsibility is something that must be placed on trial. And as a fact, this is, as we learn from the inspired record, exactly what transpired in Eden. Adam was placed on probation. His obligations to God were put to the test. His loyalty to the creator was tried out. The test consisted of obedience to his maker's command. Of a certain tree he was forbidden to eat.

But right here a very formidable difficulty confronts us. From God's standpoint the result of Adam's probation was not left in uncertainty. Before he formed him out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, God knew exactly how the appointed test would terminate. With this statement every Christian reader must be in accord, for, to deny God's foreknowledGen. is to deny his omniscience, and this is to repudiate one of the fundamental attributes of Deity. But we must go further: not only had God a perfect foreknowledGen. of the outcome of Adam's trial, not only did his omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, but he decreed beforehand that he should do so. This is evident not only from the general fact that nothing happens save that which the Creator and Governor of the universe has eternally purposed, but also from the express declaration of Scripture that Christ as a Lamb "verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1Pe 1:20). If, then, God had foreordained before the foundation of the world that Christ should, in due time, be offered as a sacrifice for sin, then it is unmistakably evident that God had also foreordained sin should enter the world, and if so, that Adam should transgress and fall. In full harmony with this, God himself placed in Eden the tree of the knowledGen. of good and evil, and also allowed the Serpent to enter and deceive Eve.

Here then is the difficulty: If God has eternally decreed that Adam should eat of the tree, how could he be held responsible not to eat of it? Formidable as the problem appears, nevertheless, it is capable of a solution, a solution, moreover, which can be grasped even by the finite mind. The solution is to be found in the distinction between God's secret will and his revealed will. As stated in Appendix A 1411, human responsibility is measured by our knowledGen. of God's revealed will; what God has told us, not what he has not told us, is the definer of our duty. So it was with Adam.

That God had decreed sin should enter this world through the disobedience of our first parents was a secret hid in his own breast. Of this Adam knew nothing, and that made all the difference so far as his responsibility was concerned. Adam was quite unacquainted with the Creator's hidden counsels. What concerned him was God's revealed will. And that was plain! God had forbidden him to eat of the tree, and that was enough. But God went further: he even warned Adam of the dire consequences which would follow should he disobey — death would be the penalty. Transgression, then, on the part of Adam was entirely without excuse. Created with no evil nature in him, with a will in perfect equipoise, placed in the fairest environment, given dominion over all the lower creation, allowed full liberty with only a single restriction upon him, plainly warned of what would follow an act of insubordination to God, there was every possible inducement for Adam to preserve his innocence; and, should he fail and fall, then by every principle of righteousness his blood must lie upon his own head, and his guilt be imputed to all in whose behalf he acted.

Had God disclosed to Adam his purpose that sin would enter this world, and that he had decreed Adam should eat of the forbidden fruit, it is obvious that Adam could not have been held responsible for the eating of it. But in that God withheld the knowledGen. of his counsels from Adam, his accountability was not interfered with.

Again; had God created Adam with a bias toward evil, then human responsibility had been impaired and man's probation merely one in name. But inasmuch as Adam was included among that which God, at the end of the sixth day, pronounced "Very good", and, inasmuch as man was made "upright" (Ec 7:29), then every mouth must be stopped and the whole world must acknowledGen. itself "guilty before God" (Rom. 3:19).

Once more, it needs to be carefully borne in mind that God did not decree that Adam should sin and then inject into Adam an inclination to evil, in order that his decree might be carried out. No; "God cannot be tempted, neither tempteth he any man" (Jas 1:13). Instead, when the Serpent came to tempt Eve, God caused her to remember his command forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledGen. of good and evil and of the penalty attached to disobedience! Thus, though God had decreed the Fall, in no sense was he the Author of Adam's sin, and at no point was Adam's responsibility impaired. Thus may we admire and adore the "manifold wisdom of God", in devising a way whereby his eternal decree should be accomplished, and yet the responsibility of his creatures be preserved intact.

perhaps. a further word should be added concerning the decretive will of God, particularly in its relation to evil. First of all we take the high ground that, whatever things God does or permits, are right, just, and good, simply because God does or permits them. When Luther gave answer to the question, "Whence it was that Adam was permitted to fall, and corrupt his whole posterity; when God could have prevented him from falling, etc", he said, "God is a Being whose will acknowledges no cause: neither is it for us to prescribe rules to his sovereign pleasure, or call him to account for what he does. He has neither superior nor equal; and his will is the rule of all things. He did not thus will such and such things because they were right, and he was bound to will them; but they are therefore equitable and right because he wills them. The will of man, indeed, may be influenced and moved; but God's will never can. To assert the contrary is to undeify him" (De Servo, Arb. c/ 153).

To affirm that God decreed the entrance of sin into his universe, and that he foreordained all its fruits and activities, is to say that which, at first may shock the reader; but reflection should show that it is far more shocking to insist that sin has invaded his dominions against his will, and that its exercise is outside his jurisdiction: for in such a case where would be his omnipotency? No; to recognise that God has foreordained all the activities of evil, is to see that he is the Governor of sin: his will determines its exercise, his power regulates its bounds (Psa. 76:10). He is neither the Inspirer nor the Infuser of sin in any of his creatures, but he is its Master, by which we mean God's management of the wicked is so entire that, they can do nothing save that which his hand and counsel, from everlasting, determined should be done.

Though nothing contrary to holiness and righteousness can ever emanate from God, yet he has, for his own wise ends, ordained his creatures to fall into sin. Had sin never been permitted, how could the justice of God have been displayed in punishing it? How could the wisdom of God have been manifested in so wondrously overruling it? How could the grace of God have been exhibited in pardoning it? How could the power of God have been exercised in subduing it? A very solemn and striking proof of Christ's acknowledgment of God's decretal of sin is seen in his treatment of Judas. The Saviour knew full well that Judas would betray him, yet we never read that he expostulated with him! Instead, he said to him, "That thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27)! Yet, mark this was said after he had received the sop and Satan had taken possession of his heart. Judas was already prepared for and determined on his traitorous work, therefore did Christ permissively (bowing to his Father's ordination) bid him go forth to his awful work.

Thus, though God is not the author of sin, and though sin is contrary to his holy nature, yet the existence and operations of it are not contrary to his will, but subservient to it. God never tempts man to sin, but he has, by his eternal counsels (which he is now executing), determined its course. Moreover, as we have shown in 1388, though God has decreed man's sins, yet is man responsible not to commit them, and blameable because he does. Strikingly were these two sides of this awful subject brought together by Christ in that statement of his: "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come (because God has foreordained them); but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh" (Mt 18:7). So, too, though all which took place at Calvary was by the "determinate counsel and foreknowledGen. of God" (Acts 2:23), nevertheless, "wicked hands" crucified the Lord of glory, and, in consequence, his blood has righteously rested upon them and on their children. High mysteries are these, yet it is both our happy privileGen. and bounden duty to humbly receive whatsoever God has been pleased to reveal concerning them in his Word of Truth.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:33:53 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Adam and Eve had more than two children.

Ok, I understand that Adam and Eve had more than two children, including some daughters.
Since Adam and Eve were a couple, then their offspring were sons and daughters...

you see the quandry?

Did their children have children together?

And whats up with these "Supernatural beings" as mentioned in Genesis 6.

There is no mention previous to this that God had buddies.

It would be obvious that thier children had children with each other. You re having a hard time figuring that out?

Other beings? Its accepted that the entire host of Angels was created before man.

Wild,

I'm not having a hard time garnering that bit of info from the text. If you reread my posts, you might see that I am posting the info, directly from the bible, and questioning the fact that at one time, incest was not only condoned, but encouraged. Glad man decided that this wasn't the best practice to undertake.

As far as other beings, I wasn't aware that its "accepted" that there were an entire host of angels keeping god company up until the day that man was created.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:35:54 PM EDT

[#50]

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

That the sons [01121] ben (Hebrew)

1) son, grandson, child, member of a group

a) son, male child

b) grandson

c) children (pl. - male and female)

d) youth, young men (pl.)

There are no supernatural beings or angels here.

of God [0430] 'elohiym (Hebrew)

This is a plural word that refers to the Trinity. (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.)

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Here is a link for you.

www.blueletterbible.org/

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Who can answer a vexing question I have from the book of Genesis. (Page 1 of 3)

General » Religion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us