I know, mate.
What I meant was when I got to bed I'd spend far too much time working out how I was going to respond, instead of actually getting to sleep.
Well, the Bible does say only God created evil, so maybe it was there even before Adam and Eve (or Lilith) appeared on the scene?
Another problem here is the simple fact that nowhere in the Tanakh can I find any reference to the Jews or anyone else being contaminated in any way by Adam's "sin". Have I missed something?
How many of the Bible's bad guys are instead claimed to be descendants of Cain?
Cain, of course, raises another question or three
After the fable says this shepherd murdered his agricultural brother, Cain is tattooed so no one will kill him, and he sets off to find a wife and build a city.
First obvious questions are who was there to kill him, and just how many people does it take to built a city?
Unfortunately I have still to find anyone asking these questions in the early days of Christianity. No doubt there were some who did.
But then, that type of question can prove extremely emotionally upsetting.
Be interesting, too, to know just who was Cain's father. Samael?
Ah yeah, Cheri. Her take on the terrible twos, that children are under the control of her Christian Devil, is typical superstition. According to Patai even in the 19th century Jews were carrying amulets to protect themselves from devils and demons. A child smiling in its sleep was communing with Lilith. Psychologically, of course, there is nothing terrible about the twos. Instead, they are the inquisitive twos, driven by the need to learn what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.
As you know, the Jewish concept of yetzer ha tov/yetzer ha ra is as close as I can find to my own perception we are born genetically programmed to learn how to live in a way that betters the tribe. What happens after that depends on the environment we are brought up in. Yetzer ha ra is the dodgy one. We need it, or we will never have the drive to become educated and get a job which will allow us to go forth and multiply (something only farming cultures can do). So long as we control our yetzer ha ra we will do well, but if it controls us we are in big trouble.
Some interesting thoughts in http://theopenscroll.com/cainsPaternity.htm
As always, I see more questions there. Why do so few Bible commentators refuse to consider that, given the tree names in the Tanakh, the "fruit" of the Tree of Knowledge was the entheogenic symbiotic Amanita muscaria, undoubtedly the source of knowledge? Consider the oak (or tamarisk) of Mamre. As with so many of the Bible's named trees it, too, depends on its symbiotic mushrooms.
Funny how one thing leads to another:
Tamarisk trees (particularly Tamarix gallica) were once comparatively extensive throughout the southern Sinai, and their resin is similar to wax, melts in the sun, is sweet and aromatic (like honey), and has a dirty-yellow color, fitting somewhat with the biblical descriptions of manna.
Manna - Wikipedia
then we have the Druids
Ah, the Gospel of Mary, the Mary whom Jesus loved more than any other disciple and was deeply resented by Peter who, as she says, hated the female race.
Questions, questions questions
As always, you are not reading what I actually say, twisting it to suit your emotional needs.
See what I mean?
The prophets wrote those stories after the events as a means of explaining why those events happened.
The Jews were an insignificant people under the heels of the great powers of the time.
Stuck with their teachings that the Jews were the Chosen People of the later Yahwist priests' one and only deity, they had to explain every time just how and why the Jews were defeated by all and sundry, and were subject to the same diseases suffered by those under different deities.
Then there was the little matter of the fact that, in order to survive, the Jews had to go to Osiris' Egypt which was not suffering the droughts which made life so difficult in the Promised Land.
No you did not.
I asked you to provide the source. By that, I thought it clearly meant provide the source, as in telling me the name of exactly which source provided what you believe.
|Never goes away...|
Yep, that’s what keeps me up later too!
|Never goes away...|
AFAIk, there is no tree of knowledge in the Bible, just the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
As for children preprogrammed to learn, aren’t all animals ptrprogrammed?
The debate about the accuracy of the Bible is not new, but as a Christian I believe that it is authoritative truth for my life. It is integral in my relationship with God. One of the best ways to get close to someone is to get to know them. God's Word provides much information about God's attributes, interactions, plans, power, purposes and what God expects of us.
Last night at our Base Camp Student Ministries, our youth pastor read a quote from Charles Wesley in which he made a logical argument for the authority of the Bible:
"The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God.
1) It could not be the invention of good men or angels, for they neither would or could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it saying, 'Thus saith the Lord', when it was their own invention.
2) It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.
3) Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration."
What sources can you provide to affirm from on-site evidence that everything the Bible says is virtually true?
Why do you say stuff like this? This is nonsense- to insist on archaeological evidence that affirms "EVERYTHING the Bible says is virtually true?" When did archaeological evidence affirm EVERYTHING about anything as virtually true? (Emphasis mine)
How do you define "genocide"? Care to provide your source?
God ordered that every man, woman, and child be murdered. No question about that unless you find you need to say God is lying here. Or the Bible is.
So how do you excuse God and the Bible from your assumption?
I don't need to excuse God. He had the Israelites to carry out His judgment (on Jericho for instance). God is the judge of all of us and He has the right to carry out that judgment by whichever means He sees fit.
In Genesis 15, God cuts a covenant with Abram, in Canaan. The covenant states in verses 13-15 that his descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs and they will serve the people in that land for 400 years. Then, God will judge the nation that they will serve and they will leave that nation. Verse 16 God tells, "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete"
Later on in Genesis 15, God says to Abram, verses 18-21 "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates- the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girga****es, and the Jebusites."
As you can see, there were a lot of different people groups in the area of Canaan.
|Never goes away...|
Re descendants of Cain -
If for sake of argument we take the stories literally, then didn't all of Cain's descendants drown?
Or was Noah a descendant of Cain? Of course, in that case everybody would be.
Thank-you for the clarification. The name of the source I used is the "Hebrew Learners Literal Version, the Hallelu", copyright 2012 by Sean Murphy.
Simply for the sake of accuracy, I would like to point out that Abel, the murder victim, offered an animal sacrifice from his flocks. Cain, the murderer, had offered vegetables from his field, and his sacrifice had not been accepted by God.
Noah was from Seth's line according to Genesis chapter 5, so you are right - all of Cain's descendants were killed in the flood.
|Never goes away...|
Oops, I just realized that was only the paternal descent trees. It doesn't actually say there were no intermarriages (or trysts) between the various lineages, does it?
|Here to stay...|
I've read all of Confessions and the guy in spite of his strong anti-Gnostic stance was quite Neoplatonic and Paul may have picked up original sin this way too. Wikipedia isn't horrible for this subject:
The mills of the gods grinding slowly is a hint at long cycles (golden age/Edenic/ice age) which have associated genetic changes which may actually be linked to human behavior.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that there is no biblical precedent for the idea that sin entered the world through Adam, and along with sin, death, and since all men sin, all men die.
David in Ps 51:5 writes, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?"
Leviticus shows that sin had to be mitigated repeatedly in order for people to be in good standing with God.
When Isaiah is before the Lord and the seraphim are crying out, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory"...Isaiah exclaims in Isaiah 6:5 "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. In verse 7, a seraphim touches Isaiah's mouth with a live coal and says, "Behold, this has touched your lips' Your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged."
It kind of echoes what Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
A closer look at Romans 3:21-26
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.
Has anyone read the news story about DC Comics coming out with a mature audience book entitled "Second Coming" in March, about Jesus being released from his prison in heaven to return to earth and try to figure out where he went wrong? He rooms with a super hero named Sun-Man. Here is the link to the breitbart report, https://www.breitbart.com/ente...ngling-jesus-christ/
What do you think of this?
For those of us who take the Bible, literally, it is quite perplexing.
No much of a good read for those of us who are not literalists either.
Funny how those of us who are Christian are expected to take it on the chin while other religions can easily claim discrimination, huh. But then, that is exactly what is expected of us when we are true Christians, isn't it?
Don't have to like it though...
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
Got an hour or so, so will try to catch up on what I have been missing.
Just as so many other ordinary human beings did not and do not like having their lives demonised and trivialised by what I'd like to call Churchianity but in fact is the way far too many ordinary people live out their Christianity.
Try being Native American, First Australian, LGBTQ(uestioning).
Or maybe those who still hold Mother Nature and Sky Father in their hearts, the Wiccans, Druids, the countless numbers who know the value of entheogens which were at the core of the Mystery Religions and others destroyed by politico-religious Churchianity.
Every single one of those identities, pre-Christianity, had rich, fulfilling lives in their own cultures which fully accepted them.
At least Christians are no longer murdering Christians, though the followers of Ish Milchama have more blood on their hands every single day of the year.
Your reluctance is understandable. After all, only you can see the relevance of Paul's trip to Damascus, which I have shown was a codename for Qumran, to my question of Christians' adoption of a proven Latin translation for the Hebrew meaning venus as Morning Star.
I'm understanding now why you find my posts bafflingly confusing for you.
No, Vicki. I told you exactly what the Bible said and you rejected God's Word as an assumption.
So my question was 100% valid. Can you name any other deity who, as your Bible says ish milchama did, ordered its people to commit genocide, killing every man, woman, and child?
Then it must seem you know very few historians.
Yet again, of course, you have failed to read my question as I posted it.
That is one reason I am looking forward to your response to my questions on David's census. What is known of the culture of the time, especially given there is no evidence at all of the existence of a king named David?
I quoted from an earlier Bible chapter which showed there was no reason for David not to conduct his census so long as each man was taxed and this tax given to the Temple.
I also asked you to tell me exactly why God conned David into this census; why, exactly, was God angry with Israel?
Can you tell me?
Seems you are still confused.
Let me try again.
Prophets also explain the past, as they did with David's plague.
Now, since you do not seem to be aware of what happened to Judaism between the exile and the rise of Hezekiah and Josiah, I'll see if I can word this differently.
The exiled Jews, the defeated country's elite, not the common serfs, argued in Babylon with their priests that they had indeed followed every word of God's commands, yet here they were, defeated and exiled by the men of Marduk.
They demanded an explanation, insisting they were not corrupt, did not commit idolatry, oppress the poor, etc.
The priests were flummoxed, so they adopted and adapted this much older Sumerian/Babylonian mythology of a man who said the same thing to his God. He said he had followed all that was asked of him, yet his life was a mess.
That was an original mythology explaining why bad things happen to good people.
Having no answer, the priests changed the subject (sound familiar?). Instead, they said the Jews, like Job, had no right to question the deity who had created everything.
Hope this helps.
The whole thing is a political cover-up so far as I am concerend.
As I think we agree, we need top know far more abourt those northern cultures.
Especially if Noah's Flood originally was created by the refugees from the inundation of the Bl;ack Sea.
The rapid flooding of the Black Sea basin could have been the indirect origin of the biblical flood story. The flood story of the Bible was preceded by flood epics of Mesopotamia, which could have been one of the sites settled by refugees from the Black Sea. The legendary resting place of Noah's ark is Mount Arat in Turkey, not far from the Black Sea.
What, in real terms, is the difference?
No point, for me, anyway, in just knowing good when there is so much bad which has to be dealt with knowingly.
I'll stick with Yggdrasil.
Oh, and the symbiotic Amanita muscaria, the "fruit" of so many of the specifically named trees in the Bible.
So why do so many have difficulty accepting this must include we Great Apes?