OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[jwinslow]

fify?

Wut? Chicken butt.

Why? Chicken thigh.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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".

I made some effort to find the respective birth dates of Enoch and Seth. Seth was born when Adam was 105, but I couldn't find a firm date on Enoch. I did find this:

(which, incidentally, I have a copy of at the house in a book my Mom once bought me)
which suggests that Enoch was born prior to Seth, consequently, Cain "knew" his wife prior to Genesis 5:4's statement that Seth was born and there were other sons and daughters thereafter. It is notable also that this particular family tree provides for a world population at the conception of Enoch as Cain, Adam and Eve. Under Adam's line, after Seth, you can see branches which are the other sons and daughters, but none before Seth.

It is possible that the Bible just doesn't mention other children of Adam and Eve's, born prior to Seth, though that's somewhat a hard pill to swallow in as much as Genesis 5:4, as you point out, efforts to so mention despite these sons and daughters playing no particular role in the rest of the narrative.

So.... I guess what I'm left with, literally, is that Cain married his own mother as there was no other option available. Unless we add things into the text.... but, I'd note- I've been scolded for doing so on this board many times in the past.

Furthermore, going back to the CITY of Enoch.... I'm counting a population of 5, though I'm not including the uncounted and unnamed sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

Frankly, the excuse of "quibbling with word choice" (I know it was Jwins that said that, not you, Bay) is silly in two respects.
1) We're talking about the alleged Word of God... Such an awesome thing surely requires more than haphazard stabs at words to convey the message.

and 2) (addressed below)

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've seen you mention things about our own stupidity at comprehending the infinite and while the statement itself isn't particularly disagreeable, often time it comes across as an excuse to not explore a legitimate question ... perhaps out of fear of where the answer might lead.

While I agree that if there is a GOD such an entity is far, far, smarter than me, to simply throw my hands up and say "Well, I can't possibly know the answer because I'm not as smart as God" is just an excuse to not answer the question. Questions, I might add,the answers to which are not particularly unknowable. Can one hide from God? There are a few instances in the Bible where it seems you CAN hide things from God's presence... or at least be "outside" of it.... Take for example, the land of Nod, or putting idols under an Oak tree....

Moreover, and I am really going off of something I think Bgrad said once and don't know if you agreed... What is Hell? I remember bgrad saying it was a place where God was absent. If God is absent a place, then he is NOT omnipresent. That's not unknowable to our simple minds, Josh... that's a simple logical deduction.

 

[jwinslow]

Thanks for the effort BKB and this is a much better debate, including the callouts at the end. I'll try to dig into this later, though I'm about to disappear for the entire weekend with photography work.

I've seen you mention things about our own stupidity at comprehending the infinite and while the statement itself isn't particularly disagreeable, often time it comes across as an excuse to not explore a legitimate question ... perhaps out of fear of where the answer might lead.

I tried to touch on that in the last post, because that does come across as a bit of a copout. I'm open for a conversation.

Earlier I found fault with your declaration that an infinite being would have no concept of time and by extension "a day." While I think God is capable of grasping finite comments emerging from beings that he created and sculpted, your rebuttal brings up an interesting alternative response. God is an infinite being with a singular purpose. It does not start, continue and end, it just is. God often speaks in similar confusing simplicity about Himself and His Word. If Adam went from eternal to mortal on the day he ate of the fruit, an infinite being might describe that day quite differently than mortal beings like us that track our fleeting days on this earth.

 

[jwinslow]

It is possible that the Bible just doesn't mention other children of Adam and Eve's, born prior to Seth, though that's somewhat a hard pill to swallow in as much as Genesis 5:4, as you point out, efforts to so mention despite these sons and daughters playing no particular role in the rest of the narrative.

So.... I guess what I'm left with, literally, is that Cain married his own mother as there was no other option available. Unless we add things into the text.... but, I'd note- I've been scolded for doing so on this board many times in the past.

Furthermore, going back to the CITY of Enoch.... I'm counting a population of 5, though I'm not including the uncounted and unnamed sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

Frankly, the excuse of "quibbling with word choice" (I know it was Jwins that said that, not you, Bay) is silly in two respects.
1) We're talking about the alleged Word of God... Such an awesome thing surely requires more than haphazard stabs at words to convey the message.

and 2) (addressed below)

This is a much different response, thanks.

What you're left with is a lack of pertinent information. In its absence, you've chosen to guess who he married and impregnated. To me, neither option seems very grand in my modern perspective but some level of inbreeding was unavoidable. Given that we know Eve by name, I'm led to believe it is someone else that was not named.

Are Abel and Cain only children when the murder takes place? Or are they simply the only ones worth mentioning for the lessons and purpose of those chapters?

We found about Seth and the lineage because it was important to establish the lineage of Noah (and beyond). It's very incorrect to state that they played no role in the narrative, as blood lines are found many places in scripture. As an American I sometimes find those long-winded bloodlines to be tedious but they were pretty important to those who wrote The Word. You do not necessarily find references to the women involved in the bloodlines, however, and that was the problem you encountered with Cain. The bloodline is stated quiet clearly but not who is having the children.

...

Can you call it a city if it becomes one after you establish it? How big does it need to be to be called that in new world terms?

 

[matcar]

This is a much different response, thanks.

What you're left with is a lack of pertinent information. In its absence, you've chosen to guess who he married and impregnated. To me, neither option seems very grand in my modern perspective but some level of inbreeding was unavoidable. Given that we know Eve by name, I'm led to believe it is someone else that was not named.

Are Abel and Cain only children when the murder takes place? Or are they simply the only ones worth mentioning for the lessons and purpose of those chapters?

We found about Seth and the lineage because it was important to establish the lineage of Noah (and beyond). It's very incorrect to state that they played no role in the narrative, as blood lines are found many places in scripture. As an American I sometimes find those long-winded bloodlines to be tedious but they were pretty important to those who wrote The Word. You do not necessarily find references to the women involved in the bloodlines, however, and that was the problem you encountered with Cain. The bloodline is stated quiet clearly but not who is having the children.

...

Can you call it a city if it becomes one after you establish it? How big does it need to be to be called that in new world terms?

This is really good stuff. One item of interest to me-one that I also struggle with-are the long dialog on lineage. As you note, the bloodline was very important to those who wrote it, which presumably explains why women are largely absent from it. It is also one of dozens of times where those that wrote it seem to have an impact on the Word.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Thanks for the effort BKB and this is a much better debate, including the callouts at the end. I'll try to dig into this later, though I'm about to disappear for the entire weekend with photography work.I tried to touch on that in the last post, because that does come across as a bit of a copout. I'm open for a conversation.

Earlier I found fault with your declaration that an infinite being would have no concept of time and by extension "a day." While I think God is capable of grasping finite comments emerging from beings that he created and sculpted, your rebuttal brings up an interesting alternative response. God is an infinite being with a singular purpose. It does not start, continue and end, it just is. God often speaks in similar confusing simplicity about Himself and His Word. If Adam went from eternal to mortal on the day he ate of the fruit, an infinite being might describe that day quite differently than mortal beings like us that track our fleeting days on this earth.

Wasn't trying to call anyone out so much as illustrate what I trying to say.... but, that was before I saw you had posted your post about it perhaps sounding like a copout. Good luck with your photography!

Regarding the idea of spiritual death as a general matter, and staying within the confines of Genesis (as I find your response and ideas of spiritual death to be wholly a Christian idea (not surprisingly, as you are indeed a Christian) whereas Genesis is a Jewish text that Christianity purportedly rests its foundations on)...

First, what does God have to say about the problem with eating the Fruit?

Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

So, and I suppose this also counsels your responses about our feeble minds, the problem is that in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he has become like "one of us" (I will assume this is the "Royal We" rather than God talking to other lessor gods, or whomever) Which is to say, able to be as smart as God is ... at least on the issue of knowing good and evil. So, being that we are now just like God, God decides that he'd better forbid us from eternal life (As we'd know everything AND be timeless... sounds kinda like God, actually) and thus bans us from us from Eden and has some creature protect the entrance with a sword.

God was perfectly fine with us being ignorant of good an evil and being physically immortal (He didn't forbid us eating from the tree of life, prior to being expelled from Eden, after all) Which leads me to believe, and in as much as Genesis 2:15 suggests Adam was placed in Eden to be a gardener (OK, I'm being a little snarky... I can't help it), I'm left to wonder... what in the world is our purpose? Ignorant slave labor? I mean... for a Loving God, he doesn't seem to have any other grand plans for Adam.... and as we discussed, hadn't even considered a mate for Adam. I mean... I can't help but laugh... "So, how about this cow? No? Well, here's a rabbit? Not doing it for you...[scratches head, rubs beard] Have you considered this locust?" (Of course, they wouldn't be called those things Yet... so, maybe it's more like this: "This? EWWW, no! That's a locust! This? Too fury, it's a squirrel. This? Nah, tongue is too rough, like a cat"

I digress.... But, seriously... was Adam (and eventually Eve) just to garden for all eternity?

In any event, Adam and his progeny go out and, right prior to the flood, basically become a bunch of sinful and wicked douchebags so much so that God says "I've had enough of this shit" and kills everything (including the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and the Tree of Life) Not sure why God wiped out innocent cows, lightning bugs and the like because MAN was a douchebag, but whatever.... Where after He then says, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done"

Ok, so.... God goes on a murder spree because his creation is wicked, and after attempting to remedy that, he decides "Well, you're evil at heart, so I won't do that again" What? Did he not realize this before killing damn near everything? And... the end result? Well, you're gonna fuck it all up again, it is your nature.

That doesn't strike you as extremely silly? I guess I went pretty far off the post I quoted of yours... but... What the hell, I'm on a roll. lol

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This is a much different response, thanks.

What you're left with is a lack of pertinent information. In its absence, you've chosen to guess who he married and impregnated. To me, neither option seems very grand in my modern perspective but some level of inbreeding was unavoidable. Given that we know Eve by name, I'm led to believe it is someone else that was not named.

I've guessed? No... I've logically deduced that there was one person available for marriage, his Mom. Again, I admit it's possible that there's stuff going on "off camera" if you will, but ... it makes for a pretty bad on camera script, if nothing else, and means the Bible is - in this respect - an incomplete accounting. In any case, at least we agree that God isn't hostile to shagging our family members.

Are Abel and Cain only children when the murder takes place? Or are they simply the only ones worth mentioning for the lessons and purpose of those chapters?

If we're to read it literally, and in recognition that after Seth, the author speaks of uncounted and unnamed other kids, I'd have to say yes, Cain and Abel are the only kids. The alternative is to read into the book that which is not there... or.. as you just scolded me for, assuming something. I guess I find it remarkable that my assumptions are foolish, but yours not?

We found about Seth and the lineage because it was important to establish the lineage of Noah (and beyond). It's very incorrect to state that they played no role in the narrative, as blood lines are found many places in scripture. As an American I sometimes find those long-winded bloodlines to be tedious but they were pretty important to those who wrote The Word. You do not necessarily find references to the women involved in the bloodlines, however, and that was the problem you encountered with Cain. The bloodline is stated quiet clearly but not who is having the children.

The unnamed and uncounted other children literally played no role whatever in the remainder of the Bible. I'm not talking about those named in the genealogies... if I were, I wouldn't be able to call them "unnamed" Point is, when the author found it necessary to advise the reader there were more people, he did. He did when he did, and not before. If I'm to be literal, that MUST have meaning, no?

Can you call it a city if it becomes one after you establish it? How big does it need to be to be called that in new world terms?

Depends on what assumptions you want to read into the text to have it make sense, I guess.

 

[muffler dragon]

So... just keeping this discussion within the YEC, semi-literalist frame work?

I'm still debating on whether I get out my Chumash or not. Should I bother, BKB, or just let it lie?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So... just keeping this discussion within the YEC, semi-literalist frame work?

I'm still debating on whether I get out my Chumash or not. Should I bother, BKB, or just let it lie?

Do as you wish

 

[jwinslow]

I've guessed? No... I've logically deduced that there was one person available for marriage, his Mom. Again, I admit it's possible that there's stuff going on "off camera" if you will, but ... it makes for a pretty bad on camera script, if nothing else, and means the Bible is - in this respect - an incomplete accounting. In any case, at least we agree that God isn't hostile to shagging our family members.

You've deduced based on the experience that characters are typically introduced in most literature. The Bible is not bound by that basic literary approach and often leaves out women.

If we're to read it literally, and in recognition that after Seth, the author speaks of uncounted and unnamed other kids, I'd have to say yes, Cain and Abel are the only kids. The alternative is to read into the book that which is not there... or.. as you just scolded me for, assuming something. I guess I find it remarkable that my assumptions are foolish, but yours not?

I didn't say whether there were other kids alive then. I asked whether it was established.

Genesis 5:4 waxes poetic about men living and having children. Does it mention the wives at all? Nope, even though we know there are some women around. It's just not relevant to the story.

The unnamed and uncounted other children literally played no role whatever in the remainder of the Bible. I'm not talking about those named in the genealogies... if I were, I wouldn't be able to call them "unnamed" Point is, when the author found it necessary to advise the reader there were more people, he did. He did when he did, and not before. If I'm to be literal, that MUST have meaning, no?

What's your ultimate point here? Proving that Seth had sex with his mother and thus, what? Is there a purpose besides "look, weird" ? Is there a scenario for populating the earth from two people that doesn't seem to gross to us?

Depends on what assumptions you want to read into the text to have it make sense, I guess.

Ok.

 

[BayBuck]

I made some effort to find the respective birth dates of Enoch and Seth. Seth was born when Adam was 105, but I couldn't find a firm date on Enoch. ..which suggests that Enoch was born prior to Seth, consequently, Cain "knew" his wife prior to Genesis 5:4's statement that Seth was born and there were other sons and daughters thereafter. It is notable also that this particular family tree provides for a world population at the conception of Enoch as Cain, Adam and Eve. Under Adam's line, after Seth, you can see branches which are the other sons and daughters, but none before Seth.

It is possible that the Bible just doesn't mention other children of Adam and Eve's, born prior to Seth, though that's somewhat a hard pill to swallow in as much as Genesis 5:4, as you point out, efforts to so mention despite these sons and daughters playing no particular role in the rest of the narrative.

So.... I guess what I'm left with, literally, is that Cain married his own mother as there was no other option available. Unless we add things into the text.... but, I'd note- I've been scolded for doing so on this board many times in the past.

Furthermore, going back to the CITY of Enoch.... I'm counting a population of 5, though I'm not including the uncounted and unnamed sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.
.

Just because Genesis 5 comes after Genesis 4 in the book does not mean those events had to happen in the same order. Genesis 4 is Cain & Abel's story, while Genesis 5 is sort of a recap for the purpose of establishing the lineage of the Adam-Noah line (which then continues into Noah's story). For as long as these lives are supposed to have lasted, it's not unreasonable to think that Cain had his own children well into his 100's (his age is not specified), and it's actually not hard to imagine that he could have "married" even a later descendant from Adam's "other sons and daughters", so not actually his "sister" but potentially a niece etc. For as long as these lives in Genesis lasted, there could be dozens or hundreds of people (and overlapping generations) in just a few centuries.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You've deduced based on the experience that characters are typically introduced in most literature. The Bible is not bound by that basic literary approach and often leaves out women.I didn't say whether there were other kids alive then. I asked whether it was established.

So, you agree with me then that one MUST read into the Bible that which is not there. OK.

Genesis 5:4 waxes poetic about men living and having children. Does it mention the wives at all? Nope, even though we know there are some women around. It's just not relevant to the story.
What's your ultimate point here? Proving that Seth had sex with his mother and thus, what? Is there a purpose besides "look, weird" ? Is there a scenario for populating the earth from two people that doesn't seem to gross to us?

About as weird as God demanding Abram and all his progeny deliver their foreskins in return for making Abram the father of a great nation (despite having a barren wife)

Speaking of Abram (later known as Abraham...) He goes into Egypt, and being that he's married to a hot chick, asks his wife Sarai to say she's his sister so the Egyptians don't kill him. Well, she does, and being that she is such a hottie, Pharaoh takes her into HIS house, and pays Abram handsomely for it in sheep and maidservants and the like, only to get plagued by God for taking some other dude's wife, despite his being told a blatant lie by Abram and Sarai about their relations. So, God punishes the innocent victim. Nice.

 

[AKAK]

So... just keeping this discussion within the YEC, semi-literalist frame work?

I'm still debating on whether I get out my Chumash or not. Should I bother, BKB, or just let it lie?

we're getting too far off the fried chicken track, I think some Chumash might go well with it

 

[AKAK]

So, you agree with me then that one MUST read into the Bible that which is not there.

Simmer down, Scalia.

 

[jwinslow]

Regarding the idea of spiritual death as a general matter, and staying within the confines of Genesis (as I find your response and ideas of spiritual death to be wholly a Christian idea (not surprisingly, as you are indeed a Christian) whereas Genesis is a Jewish text that Christianity purportedly rests its foundations on)...

First, what does God have to say about the problem with eating the Fruit?

I'm going to skim over the fruit part a bit, because we've got a lot to cover

So, and I suppose this also counsels your responses about our feeble minds, the problem is that in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he has become like "one of us" (I will assume this is the "Royal We" rather than God talking to other lessor gods, or whomever) Which is to say, able to be as smart as God is ... at least on the issue of knowing good and evil. So, being that we are now just like God, God decides that he'd better forbid us from eternal life (As we'd know everything AND be timeless... sounds kinda like God, actually) and thus bans us from us from Eden and has some creature protect the entrance with a sword.

God was perfectly fine with us being ignorant of good an evil and being physically immortal (He didn't forbid us eating from the tree of life, prior to being expelled from Eden, after all)

Can man be aware of evil and not indulge in it? Absolutely not, in my experience as a Christian and someone familiar with traffic, relationships & politics.

Which leads me to believe, and in as much as Genesis 2:15 suggests Adam was placed in Eden to be a gardener (OK, I'm being a little snarky... I can't help it), I'm left to wonder... what in the world is our purpose? Ignorant slave labor? I mean... for a Loving God, he doesn't seem to have any other grand plans for Adam.... and as we discussed, hadn't even considered a mate for Adam. I mean... I can't help but laugh... "So, how about this cow? No? Well, here's a rabbit? Not doing it for you...[scratches head, rubs beard] Have you considered this locust?" (Of course, they wouldn't be called those things Yet... so, maybe it's more like this: "This? EWWW, no! That's a locust! This? Too fury, it's a squirrel. This? Nah, tongue is too rough, like a cat"

I digress.... But, seriously... was Adam (and eventually Eve) just to garden for all eternity?

Yes you're being very snarky about a very pagan concept of being caretakers of the earth. That said, there was no chance of Adam lasting in his gardening role.

In any event, Adam and his progeny go out and, right prior to the flood, basically become a bunch of sinful and wicked douchebags so much so that God says "I've had enough of this [Mark May]" and kills everything (including the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and the Tree of Life) Not sure why God wiped out innocent cows, lightning bugs and the like because MAN was a douchebag, but whatever.... Where after He then says, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done"

Ok, so.... God goes on a murder spree because his creation is wicked, and after attempting to remedy that, he decides "Well, you're evil at heart, so I won't do that again" What? Did he not realize this before killing damn near everything? And... the end result? Well, you're gonna fuck it all up again, it is your nature.

You're approaching this asking why such harsh punishment was handed down at all. I'd ask why such creatures are given so many second chances when He (and we) know what the end result will be.

It was also done to set an example and withhold that level of comeuppance.

Also, regarding innocent creatures, I'd like to play my quibble card and substitute the term "unaware." Since we're going way off the posting trail, I would argue that mother nature has proven to be a pretty harsh and cruel realm of beings.

That doesn't strike you as extremely silly? I guess I went pretty far off the post I quoted of yours... but... What the hell, I'm on a roll. lol

Germans?

I think the entire relationship is "silly" because mankind isn't worthy in my experience. I struggle a lot with the concept of humanity. He could have created us as robots who would have done as we were told but that relationship would have largely been devoid of love on both sides.

A robot would have no problem gardening, naming goats and sleeping with creatures spawned from his body parts.)

He could have created us free from Him entirely and left us to chase whatever fleeting happiness we could find in less than a century.

There is certainly a major irony in the creation of mankind and ensuing relationship. Can mankind exist without the option of sin and suffering? The agents in the Matrix could not make it work :p Obviously that's a mildly relevant joke but I've found that humans analyze and experience life by contrast.