H
HankZ
Guest
The RCC does teach that Adam and Eve are the first people to live and all others are desendants of these 2.
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
You are not Catholic, so that doesn’t apply to you. You claim all of scripture is literal, yet you have to add stories to make that claim true. Stories that are not in scripture. How can you possibly reconcile that?
Ask yourself, Hank, why is it that those people were not mentioned in Genesis prior to Cain’s exile? Why do you need to make up stories to make your intrepretation valid?
Peace
Tim
H
HankZ
Guest
Tim,
You are either acting foolishly or you are very confused, either way, I will no longer feed into this. If you are serious, then I beg for you to go get help or advice of someone that reads their bible to give you some guidance. Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you as I will be doing for you too. With the help of the Holy Spirit, you will be able to understand these things as God intends for you to understand them.
O
Orogeny
Guest
You don’t listen very well. I don’t need help. What makes you think that I don’t understand scripture as God intends?
Quit making things up. If you are going to read scriptures literally, do so.
Peace
Tim
S
Sir_Anthony
Guest
The story of Noah like most of Genesis 1-11, certainly fits under a prehistory of the Faith. The stories all take place before the written record became widespread in the Levant and thus are elements of oral traditions later recalled. However, oral traditions are quite accurate in recalling people as studies have been done on bards in the former Yugoslavia in recalling historical events, so I have no doubt that some figures like Noah are at partially historical. We do have good evidence for a massive flood in the Ancient Near East between 3000-2700BC that certainly would have left an impression on the largely pre-literate/partially literate people of the Near East at that time to influence these tales.
(this is speculation by the way, just throwing out some ideas)
Now to change topics a bit, we should look back a bit and look at Genesis macroscopically, not microscopic. When we look at Abraham to Moses, we find characters that fit in perfectly with the political and economic and the social situation of the time alleged took place (with the exception of the Exodus, which is kind of sticky to put at a particular time). Let’s look at Abraham, his father moves from Ur (the one in the South, not the North one as many belive today) to Harran. What does Harran and Ur have in common? They were major centers of worship of the Mesopotamian moon god Sin. So I can envision that Terah’s move may have been motivated by say the Akkadians who conquered Ur trying to replace Sin as the patron god of the city with their patron god. So there is a motive that is based on some historic record.
Now let’s look back at another figure in the Bible, Nimrod. He is mentioned as being a mighty hunter of the Lord. Now I recently read an article from a Protestant Biblical Scholar, and his thesis is that Nimrod is none other than Gilgamesh himself. And I find it absolutely an intriguing theory. Because when you look at the story of Gilgamesh, he is describe as a man who rivals the gods. In one of the stories, he goes into the mountains to kill the god who sent the flood, whose name was Huwawa, which is linguistically similar to the name YHWH, and look where Huwawa lives, in the mountain, i.e. the most High, El Shaddai, which is the name that Abraham knows God by. Now Gilgamesh ‘kills’ Huwawa and goes back to his city like something from Nietzsche’s God is Dead speech, and glorifies himself. Nimrod, which means rebel, is also described as a hunter like Gilgamesh, and a builder of cities like Gilgamesh. In the story of Gilgamesh he goes to a survivor of the great flood, who was probably none other than grandpa Ham. And essentially Gilgamesh rebels too and challenges the gods, in order to receive immortality.
Ultimately you got to read Genesis and Exodus like this, they are reflective of three literary traditions in the Ancient Near East, Mesopotamian, Cannanite, and Egyptian sources. Now a lot of skeptics will like to say that the bible stories were conjure up during the Captivity. But I think otherwise for the internal evidence within the Pentateuch shows either a continuous written tradition or a very strong oral traditions that predates the Exile by centuries. Certainly, redactions were made, perhaps some geography updated, but the sources in Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch are far more ancient then the Exilic Period, and I tend to think they are stories that certainly have much truth both historical and theological. For every myth, there are elements of truth
(this is speculation by the way, just throwing out some ideas)
Now to change topics a bit, we should look back a bit and look at Genesis macroscopically, not microscopic. When we look at Abraham to Moses, we find characters that fit in perfectly with the political and economic and the social situation of the time alleged took place (with the exception of the Exodus, which is kind of sticky to put at a particular time). Let’s look at Abraham, his father moves from Ur (the one in the South, not the North one as many belive today) to Harran. What does Harran and Ur have in common? They were major centers of worship of the Mesopotamian moon god Sin. So I can envision that Terah’s move may have been motivated by say the Akkadians who conquered Ur trying to replace Sin as the patron god of the city with their patron god. So there is a motive that is based on some historic record.
Now let’s look back at another figure in the Bible, Nimrod. He is mentioned as being a mighty hunter of the Lord. Now I recently read an article from a Protestant Biblical Scholar, and his thesis is that Nimrod is none other than Gilgamesh himself. And I find it absolutely an intriguing theory. Because when you look at the story of Gilgamesh, he is describe as a man who rivals the gods. In one of the stories, he goes into the mountains to kill the god who sent the flood, whose name was Huwawa, which is linguistically similar to the name YHWH, and look where Huwawa lives, in the mountain, i.e. the most High, El Shaddai, which is the name that Abraham knows God by. Now Gilgamesh ‘kills’ Huwawa and goes back to his city like something from Nietzsche’s God is Dead speech, and glorifies himself. Nimrod, which means rebel, is also described as a hunter like Gilgamesh, and a builder of cities like Gilgamesh. In the story of Gilgamesh he goes to a survivor of the great flood, who was probably none other than grandpa Ham. And essentially Gilgamesh rebels too and challenges the gods, in order to receive immortality.
Ultimately you got to read Genesis and Exodus like this, they are reflective of three literary traditions in the Ancient Near East, Mesopotamian, Cannanite, and Egyptian sources. Now a lot of skeptics will like to say that the bible stories were conjure up during the Captivity. But I think otherwise for the internal evidence within the Pentateuch shows either a continuous written tradition or a very strong oral traditions that predates the Exile by centuries. Certainly, redactions were made, perhaps some geography updated, but the sources in Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch are far more ancient then the Exilic Period, and I tend to think they are stories that certainly have much truth both historical and theological. For every myth, there are elements of truth
B
buffalo
Guest
S
severntofall
Guest
According the the description of events in the bible, Cain was long gone after they had additional children.
S
Starwynd
Guest
I just can’t believe it to be real. Sorry.
L
LeroyCRHP
Guest
I believe it is a real event, but I’m sure I do not understand everything written in the Bible on this event. It certainly has meaning and was predicted. Just because I don’t understand something in the Bible is no cause to disbelieve it.
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
Tim, do you believe that the actual body of Christ is being eaten when you take communion?First off, you really need to learn how to quote people. This is a difficult post to read. To quote something, begin the quoted text with {quote} and end it with {/quote}, except replace the { } with ].
Of course that is why I did it Mark. You are just too smart for me.
You are a literalist because you insist on a literal reading of scripture. The flood would have been recent (geologically speaking) and the evidence would be impossible to miss. You really don’t understand how devastating an event like that would be if you think that the evidence is hidden.So you can just make stuff up? When did you get the power to add to scripture?I answered your question. In fact, it is part of your reply. Did you just start replying to my post without reading it first?No, I’m not.Zero geologic evidence and zero biological evidence.Much of the old testiment is figurative. You really didn’t read my post. Too bad.
Try to read this one before you reply.
There is no evidence that one would expect to find for or against the existence of the man with a withered hand. Therefore, I believe it to be true.
There is no evidence that supports a historic flood as described in Genesis. Evidence that would be impossible to miss. Therefore, I don’t believe this story to be a historic event.
There is massive evidence that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days 6,000-10,000 years ago. Therefore, I don’t believe the stories in Genesis 1 and 2 to be historically true.
In other words, if there is no reason to question the literal/historical accuracy of the story, I accept it that way. If, however, there is evidence indicating the story isn’t literal/historical, I accept it to be figurative but still true.
Peace
Tim
What is your proof?
Mark
H
HankZ
Guest
According to what scripture? This claim is not in the bible. You may have to think about the text before you understand it, but you are not allowed to change it.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yes. Do you?
None needed. However, if there was scientific evidence that it was just a wafer being consumed, I would have a hard time keeping my faith. However, there can be no scientific evidence like that, so I am not worried.
There can and would be scientific evidence for a massive global flood and there is none.
The flood is a story, not a historic event.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Hank, isn’t this what you and I were discussing? You cannot take scripture literally if you don’t, well, take it literally. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no more children until after Cain was exiled, had children and established a city. That is a literal reading of Genesis.
Peace
Tim
H
HankZ
Guest
How do you explain all the layers of fossils that are through several layers of rocks. In other words, they claim that the layers in the rocks have taken millions of years to develope, but then a fossil is somehow found in several layers. This would mean that the animal that had been fossilised was left unhampered for thousands or even millions of years as the eath was filled in arround and over it. How do you explain rock layers being bent when the proof of such an accurance would cause the rocks to break yet they are not broken, but if you look at those same bends in the rock and realise that they were still wet from a global flood when God raised the mountains and caused these bends, you would have proof.
H
HankZ
Guest
I understand you believe the bible supports this claim. I am asking you to show me where it says that there were no other children until after Cain was exiled. The order it is written does not count as cronological order. Jesus was not born 4 times, neither was He crucified 4 times, therefore, the logical explination is that the bible is not written in the order of events, right?
O
Orogeny
Guest
“They” are not geologists.
Or tens of years or even hundreds of years. There are “polystrate fossils” being formed today. No need to rely on a global flood to explain them.
The person who told you that either is ignorant of how rocks deform or is lying to you. I am truly clueless as to which one of those is the case.
Rocks deform when subjected to stress. If the stress is great enough, the deformation is permanent. Confining stresses will prevent breaking up to a point. This can be shown in a lab setting.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Genesis 4:25. Unless of course you read Genesis in a non-literal sense.
What a strange argument. We are talking about 1 book, not 4 books. Only Genesis. In Genesis, if you take it literally, Adam and Eve had two sons - Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and was exiled, married, had children and established a city. THEN Adam and Eve had other children. There is absolutely ZERO mention of other children before this point.
Sorry, Hank, but that is a literal reading of Genesis. If you add to that, you are not reading it literally.
Peace
Tim
H
HankZ
Guest
Let’s look at Genisis 4:25;
Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”
No, this proves nothing of any other children born or not born before or after Seth’s birth. Can you produce the verse you claim states that Cain is the only child after Abel is killed until the birth of Seth?
H
HankZ
Guest
Let’s look at another portion of Genisis,
Genisis 1:27; God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genisis 2:3- Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Then Genisis 2:7-Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
By your reasoning, this would mean that God made man before and after the seventh day. So we now have 2 Adam’s and 2 Eve’s.
How do you explain this?
C
Cinette
Guest
I have just come across this thread and have read only two posts yours being one of them. I do not have time to answer your question regarding communion except to say YES!
Proof can be found in John 6 and then of course there is the passage in Corinthians that to receive the Eucharist unworthily would being judgement onto oneself - this indicates the seriousness of this.
I would add that I do not believe that anyone of us fully understands the Eucharist but we accept it in Faith because we love and trust Jesus. Faith is about believing without understanding or doubting whatever God has revealed.
" Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
- St Augustine
- Status