OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[jwinslow]

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

God refers to Adam as "him" which would imply he isn't talking to Adam but conferring with Himself(ses).

Then he had Adam do some chores, established that beasts make bad partners, and then started harvesting a woman bone.

 

[AKAK]

You're an idiot if you think Popeye's biscuits are just ok. They are a buttery delight. Btw spicy chicken is a must if eating Popeye's as the plain is...well...plain.

Not enough light and flaky for me, I can add my own butter to a good homeade biscuit... I'm pretty sure this was like commandment 17, don't serve frozen biscuits with really awesome chicken, but, it never got down the mount.

 

[matcar]

Not enough light and flaky for me, I can add my own butter to a good homeade biscuit... I'm pretty sure this was like commandment 17, don't serve frozen biscuits with really awesome chicken, but, it never got down the mount.

Probably dropped on the way down on account of the butter fingers from the delicious Popeye's biscuit.

 

[AKAK]

It sure was classy of the snake to not "take her biscuits"

He's a snake Bob, I'm sure he just snuggled up between them.

Probably dropped on the way down on account of the butter fingers from the delicious Popeye's biscuit.

ITs become clear to me that Moses got into the Prophet business because he got thrown out of culinary school.

 

[AKAK]

and then started harvesting a chicken thigh bone.

fify?

Wut? Chicken butt.

Why? Chicken thigh.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

1) You're declaring how an omnipresent God would not think as it relates to finite beings. That's a pretty spectacular example of grad's reference to adding our limited assumptions into the Word.

2) Adam had eternal life. The day he ate of that Tree he was banned from it and was headed for certain death. I'd say that kind of shift would be worthy of a "day" reference and certainly within the concept of death/separation.

16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Where did Cain go that God was not present?

and.. while we're in Genesis 4...

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.


Where did she come from? Let's count the world's human population at this point in the narrative.... Adam, check. Eve, check. Cain, check. Abel... well...

I suppose Bay will tell me I'm being too literal. But, even assuming Cain didn't marry his Mom, and there's stuff going on in the world that the Bible doesn't mention, Cain's shagging his unnamed sister, right?

A city? Enoch builds a city? Population? Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain's wife (assuming it's not Eve), and Enoch. A CITY?

 

[AKAK]

Well. Someone was raising Cain. Still not as good as Popeye's

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Unnamed sister is the more than likely answer. However gross we find it now, incest wouldn't have been a problem so early on. By the time we get to the law it is outlawed. The physical problem with incest is that our genetics don't support it. You and your closest relatives have similar copying errors so when close relatives reproduce both copies of gene sequences are very similar and the genome is unable to find a good copy of the data. However if Adam and Eve had all the genetic diversity with out mutated or bad copies then their children reproducing with each other wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[jwinslow]

16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Where did Cain go that God was not present?

No offense bkb, but this is a pretty simple concept/rebuttal that you're taking issue with based on your overall perspective on the book.

On the off chance that you were confused and not just nitpicking, his parents freaking hid in trees with shame, hiding from the presence of God. The point was not whether it was physically possible to elude God but what it represented and how they chose to flee.

and.. while we're in Genesis 4...

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.

Where did she come from? Let's count the world's human population at this point in the narrative.... Adam, check. Eve, check. Cain, check. Abel... well...

I suppose Bay will tell me I'm being too literal. But, even assuming Cain didn't marry his Mom, and there's stuff going on in the world that the Bible doesn't mention, Cain's shagging his unnamed sister, right?

A city? Enoch builds a city? Population? Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain's wife (assuming it's not Eve), and Enoch. A CITY?

Do you have another suggestion for how to populate the earth? I mean even if you spawned two or four of both genders, eventually there will be some crossover. It is unseemly to us but we live in a very different situation with much different consequences.

Also the quibbling over the word choice of city seems a bit petty.

 

[matcar]

No offense bkb, but this is a pretty simple concept/rebuttal that you're taking issue with based on your overall perspective on the book.

On the off chance that you were confused and not just nitpicking, his parents freaking hid in trees with shame, hiding from the presence of God. The point was not whether it was physically possible to elude God but what it represented and how they chose to flee.
Do you have another suggestion for how to populate the earth? I mean even if you spawned two or four of both genders, eventually there will be some crossover. It is unseemly to us but we live in a very different situation with much different consequences.

Also the quibbling over the word choice of city seems a bit petty.

Isn't this quibbling over word choice more or less what has been done for ages as people have debated and revised renditions of the Bible?

 

[BayBuck]

and.. while we're in Genesis 4...

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.

Where did she come from? Let's count the world's human population at this point in the narrative.... Adam, check. Eve, check. Cain, check. Abel... well...

I suppose Bay will tell me I'm being too literal. But, even assuming Cain didn't marry his Mom, and there's stuff going on in the world that the Bible doesn't mention, Cain's shagging his unnamed sister, right?

I think you are being appropriately literal in a reading which has Cain marrying his sister. That's pretty much how it would have had to work, given the parameters of the Genesis narrative. Genesis 5:4 says Adam also had Seth and "other sons and daughters".

 

[jwinslow]

Isn't this quibbling over word choice more or less what has been done for ages as people have debated and revised renditions of the Bible?

Which is done to enhance clarity and accuracy, not to throw shade.

I think there are some areas of the bible which are harder to decipher though I usually find that to be a limitation or hangup on my end. I have not found passages in scripture that are inconsistent with who He is. These don't feel like very compelling choices to suggest that the Bible doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, they are very compelling examples of how our limited perspective alters our perception of the events, like the ickiness of familial relations or trying to wrap our simple finite minds around the concept of infinite time and what God can/can't do when starting the world and how he should approach it. That's not a BKB thing, that's a human thing and I certainly have my own preconceptions that get in the way when reading and testing Genesis.

 

[matcar]

Which is done to enhance clarity and accuracy, not to throw shade.

I think there are some areas of the bible which are harder to decipher though I usually find that to be a limitation or hangup on my end. I have not found passages in scripture that are inconsistent with who He is. These don't feel like very compelling choices to suggest that the Bible doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, they are very compelling examples of how our limited perspective alters our perception of the events, like the ickiness of familial relations or trying to wrap our simple finite minds around the concept of infinite time and what God can/can't do when starting the world and how he should approach it. That's not a BKB thing, that's a human thing and I certainly have my own preconceptions that get in the way when reading and testing Genesis.

I get what you are saying, but one person's notion of enhancing clarity is another person's notion of alteration or even blasphemy. I realize that you and I come to Truth very differently, and that's ok. But I certainly understand those that question why it's so easy to draw inference or conclusion to some passages that are quite different over time while at the same time suggesting that the Word indesputable and unchanging. In the end, we can chalk it up to our inability to comprehend the infinite and all knowing - and if we are being intellectually honest, you almost have to do that to maintain faith - but if you acknowledge that, then you essentially acknowledge KNOWING very little but THINKING a lot. .....aaaand if you are willing to acknowledge that, then your position on many things will be understandably malleable.

 

[AKAK]

Take me to Church ('s Chicken) I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies...

Hey, anyone had Hot Chicken Takeover....

You want some.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-tavoletti/the-hot-chicken-takeover-_b_5973976.html

 

[jwinslow]

I get what you are saying, but one person's notion of enhancing clarity is another person's notion of alteration or even blasphemy. I realize that you and I come to Truth very differently, and that's ok. But I certainly understand those that question why it's so easy to draw inference or conclusion to some passages that are quite different over time while at the same time suggesting that the Word indesputable and unchanging. In the end, we can chalk it up to our inability to comprehend the infinite and all knowing - and if we are being intellectually honest, you almost have to do that to maintain faith - but if you acknowledge that, then you essentially acknowledge KNOWING very little but THINKING a lot. .....aaaand if you are willing to acknowledge that, then your position on many things will be understandably malleable.

I agree that my perspective is malleable and that others are welcome to question and challenge Scripture. If that sounded like a copout (the bible is flawless and any diversions from that are simply my shortcomings), that was not my intention.

I just think it's overly picky to quibble over the word used to describe his planted community.