S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Maybe you can tell me what parts of your bible you reject.
- Status
A
aspirant
Guest
Maybe this will help you understand what’s meant by two narratives:
At the end of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is crucified and rises from the dead. Then it happens again at the end of Mark. But no one thinks this means Jesus was crucified and rose twice. Why? The gospels of Matthew and Mark are not a single, continuous narrative. They’re two different narratives.
At the end of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is crucified and rises from the dead. Then it happens again at the end of Mark. But no one thinks this means Jesus was crucified and rose twice. Why? The gospels of Matthew and Mark are not a single, continuous narrative. They’re two different narratives.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Yes, indeed. Different narratives “proclaiming” the same truth.
Now, which part is not right. That God said it was all Good before Eve, or that God saw that man alone was not good, then came up with Eve after realizing animals were not cutting it for adam.
A
aspirant
Guest
Which part is not right, Jesus was crucified in Matthew 27 or Jesus was crucified in Mark 15? Or Luke 23? Or John 19?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
And here we go on the roller coaster that is christianity!
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
That’s not what the narrative says. God saw that creation was good.
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Genesis 1:31; ESV; emphasis mine]
The relationship between Adam and Eve was a separate one
In fact, man and woman were already made before then.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. [Genesis 1:27; ESV]
A
aspirant
Guest
Are you really incapable of understanding the concept of multiple narratives?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Let me come back with the scripture that tells us that God saw it was not good for Adam to be alone, (It is in Genesis by the way) and therefore, he decided to create Eve, who would be his helpmeet.
Let me get off my duff and get that passage.
I don’t disagree that God said all he created was good, I just think that later on he realizes it was not so good for Adam to be left with only animals. I am really trying to get a handle on this, and am open for all rebuke. Let me try to cite what I am talking about first. I thought this was a commonly known verse for christians. Maybe I got this wrong, and I will and do correct and change my view upon evidence and or the most probable senario.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
No, I am not. I am asking for you to make sense of the two narratives and explain them so we can all see them proclaiming the same truth, and whenever you are ready to do that let me know, because I really would like some closure on that.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
I know the passage (Gen 2:18), however I think you are interpreting two different “good” uses as the same thing. On one hand, after God makes all creation (including man and woman) He says that it is good - meaning that, before the fall, all creation was good, as in deed it was. On the other hand, God simply says that it is not good for man to be alone - this has nothing to do with the nature of creation, which was the context of the previous use you cite.
A
aspirant
Guest
Genesis 2:18.
Genesis 1:31.
Genesis 2:18 is not “later on.” It’s a different narrative.
Genesis 1:1-2:4a is one narrative. Genesis 2:4b-25 (and following) is a different narrative.
A
aspirant
Guest
Good. So just as Mark 15 is not “later on” after Matthew 27, but a different crucifixion narrative, Genesis 2:18 is not “later on” after Genesis 1:31, but a different creation narrative.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
But, God took a rib from Adam to create Eve did he not?
So she did not exist prior to that, right?
Here is the link I think may help.
biblebrowser.com/genesis/2-18.htm
Now, I understand that this could mean that Adam was surrounded by others that were not quite at his level of development and that in order for a woman to be at his level of development his rib had to be used in this process. Is that correct? Because then, I could see why christians can take the bible non literally in the creation account (and thankfully Orthodox and Catholics have that option!)
But, maybe I am overthinking this?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Thanks for your help, but I think I will let Byzantine Wolf help me from here. You seem to be hostile to sincere questions. I am sorry to say that, but I must.
A
aspirant
Guest
The use of a rib signifies that she is a human person like himself, neither a lesser being (like an animal, for example) nor greater being (like an angel, for example).
A
aspirant
Guest
No, but I’m not a mind reader. When I asked if you would be willing to ask questions or tell us what you don’t understand, you quickly suggested that I “reject” parts of the Bible. That really is a hostile response.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
There are different kinds of suffering. In my own case I have not suffered much physically - in fact when it comes to illness and injury I’ve had it pretty easy so far. But I have been through a lot of humiliation, frustration and discouragment, and particularly in the vocational sense. It’s gone on for most of my life, over fifty five years.
In the case of physical suffering, unless it is prolonged, it merely serves as a warning. If I get a persistent toothache, it tells me I’ve got a problem and I need to get it fixed. A quick visit to the dentist, almost painless with modern anaesthetics and the suffering ceases. A week later it’s forgotten, no matter how much it hurt at the time. The eternal value of such suffering is minimal.
Prolonged physical suffering however is different. A person in continual pain in a wheelchair, unable to do anything about it, and kept there for years on end may well mature in spiritual grace. Or they may become very bitter.
The same applies for emotional suffering, aka spiritual suffering. There are levels here - if your local football team got beaten in the final, you might feel sad. But the suffering component is trivial. But if your whole family was killed in an earthquake, you’ll suffer emotionally for the rest of your life. If your family was killed by criminals or a tyrannical regime, there’ll be the additional burden of forgiving people who don’t deserve it.
If suffering is to have any real spiritual impact, it needs to be severe, prolonged and deep enough to leave an imprint on a person’s soul.
There is of course retributive suffering, of which the prime example is Hell. We read that the final punishment for the devil and his demons will be the Lake of Fire. That’s just plain eternal torture, when it’s all said and done. Imagine being thrown into a lake of fire for eternity, waves of flame with the consistency of molten glass. By the way that’s God’s invention, in case anybody thinks He’s soft.
A cruel person might in fact be tortured by fits of desperation, and that would probably be a precursor to the eternal reality of despair towards which he is heading.
So I suppose suffering has a purpose. But we can’t see the ultimate reason most of the time. We can often see the cause - not looking after our teeth, a man’s alcoholism, a tyrant’s cruelty, the destructiveness of a tsunami or earthquake. But we can’t see what benefit it brings.
When someone’s family has been killed, we cannot see the weave and warp of the weaver. All we see is the suffering. We can’t even see the purpose of our own suffering most of the time. It would be a lot easier if we could. But if we could see the purpose of our suffering, then we wouldn’t need faith.
In the case of physical suffering, unless it is prolonged, it merely serves as a warning. If I get a persistent toothache, it tells me I’ve got a problem and I need to get it fixed. A quick visit to the dentist, almost painless with modern anaesthetics and the suffering ceases. A week later it’s forgotten, no matter how much it hurt at the time. The eternal value of such suffering is minimal.
Prolonged physical suffering however is different. A person in continual pain in a wheelchair, unable to do anything about it, and kept there for years on end may well mature in spiritual grace. Or they may become very bitter.
The same applies for emotional suffering, aka spiritual suffering. There are levels here - if your local football team got beaten in the final, you might feel sad. But the suffering component is trivial. But if your whole family was killed in an earthquake, you’ll suffer emotionally for the rest of your life. If your family was killed by criminals or a tyrannical regime, there’ll be the additional burden of forgiving people who don’t deserve it.
If suffering is to have any real spiritual impact, it needs to be severe, prolonged and deep enough to leave an imprint on a person’s soul.
There is of course retributive suffering, of which the prime example is Hell. We read that the final punishment for the devil and his demons will be the Lake of Fire. That’s just plain eternal torture, when it’s all said and done. Imagine being thrown into a lake of fire for eternity, waves of flame with the consistency of molten glass. By the way that’s God’s invention, in case anybody thinks He’s soft.
A cruel person might in fact be tortured by fits of desperation, and that would probably be a precursor to the eternal reality of despair towards which he is heading.
So I suppose suffering has a purpose. But we can’t see the ultimate reason most of the time. We can often see the cause - not looking after our teeth, a man’s alcoholism, a tyrant’s cruelty, the destructiveness of a tsunami or earthquake. But we can’t see what benefit it brings.
When someone’s family has been killed, we cannot see the weave and warp of the weaver. All we see is the suffering. We can’t even see the purpose of our own suffering most of the time. It would be a lot easier if we could. But if we could see the purpose of our suffering, then we wouldn’t need faith.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
If by “others” you mean other humans, it was only Adam and Eve at creation, so Adam was not hanging around with mentally handicapped humans.
The animals were created for man to tend to, and he was given dominion over them.God did take a rib cage from Adam and make Eve, to signify that man and woman would be united and side by side. But again, the narrative in Genesis 1, in which God says that all creation was good, was after this. Genesis 2 is the clarification of the birth of man, woman, and their relationship with God.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
And how did you arrive at this based on the narrative?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Okay. I still don’t understand this, but I will let this matter drop now because I can see that I am having a problem with the literal word Good here. Thank you for letting me work through this. I will try harder to understand this.If by “others” you mean other humans, it was only Adam and Eve at creation, so Adam was not hanging around with mentally handicapped humans.
God did take a rib cage from Adam and make Eve, to signify that man and woman would be united and side by side. But again, the narrative in Genesis 1, in which God says that all creation was good, was after this. Genesis 2 is the clarification of the birth of man, woman, and their relationship with God.
- Status