Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later[^][v]#314,808
Amen
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,810
yep, and he was conceived without consent. so he's a rape babby.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 56 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,811
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Didn't Mary know God was going to impregnate her though?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,812
god isn't bound by the laws of mortal men
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,813
@previous (D)
Isn't God the one who supposedly made those laws of mortal men?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,814
@previous (A)
no, mortal men made their own laws. god just made the men and laid before him the ten commandments
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,815
@314,811 (A)
they told her, but didnt ask. warning is not consent.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,816
@314,814 (D)
Aren't the ten commandments the law to inspire all mortal laws?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,817
@314,811 (A)
Where in the bible does it say Mary knew it was God?
Did anyone inspect her to see if her Hymen was still intact?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,818
@314,816 (A)
well they're commandments, not legal binding laws. mishnahs are meant to expand upon the oral tradition and it is from these that laws were interpreted among jewish peoples at least before they came under roman law. i think that's the case.
Anonymous D double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,819
@314,817 (B)
god wouldnt need to inspect her hymen, obviously. mary knew it was god because god sent gabriel to her.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,822
@314,818 (D)
But if they were to disobey said commandments, they'd burn in Hell. So technically they are binding laws?
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,823
@314,819 (D)
Gabriel "he is only mentioned by name in two visions of the Prophet Daniel (see Daniel 8 and 9). Here he explains to Daniel the future of Israel. Holy Tradition also credits Gabriel with inspiring the Prophet Moses to write either Genesis or the entire Pentateuch. Later Jewish Rabbinical literature states that he was the angel who taught Joseph the 70 languages needed to rule in Egypt, but this is not in the Genesis account."
No mention of contact with Mary.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,824
@314,822 (A)
they're more transcendental than anything else. there is no legal punishment for coveting. i don't see why you're confusing the two
Anonymous D double-posted this 14 years ago, 41 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,825
@314,823 (B)
you're being retarded and i'm not even going to try to bother arguing with you over this point
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,826
@314,824 (D)
But there is a punishment for breaking them, eternal hellfire?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,827
@previous (A)
which is not a mortal construct. it also is based entirely in faith.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,828
@previous (D)
I do not hold your "faith" against you. Just what kind of Christian goes around calling others Retarded?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,829
@314,827 (D)
But that is the consequence laid down by God when he made the ten commandments for mortal men. So wouldn't that technically keep man obeying said laws in fear of eternal punishment making those laws binding?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,830
@314,828 (B)
not christian, thanks. just explaining it from how a christian would interpret it. @previous (A)
see the difference between mortal sin and venial sin
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,831
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 0 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,832
@314,829 (A)
In making those laws and being all wise with the ability to see into infinity, he would already know Man would break those laws.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#314,833
it doesn't matter! nothing that god did matters before the exact moment if conception. once jesus was conceived, presumably on March 25, 0001, all the rules changed. but, no one would know that for around 34 years. so really there's a 34 year limbo period where everyone goes to hell.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,835
@314,832 (B)
But what does that have to do with God living by the laws he so creates?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,836
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,837
@314,830 (D)
OK Say while you are here may I ask you this: How do Christians interpret Adam and Eves children vs a vs what comes next? Who did these kids have sex with to begin the be gating.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,838
@previous (B)
I remember someone telling me that Cain eventually met a young woman named Asia from another tribe who he then procreated with.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,839
@314,837 (B)
you're an absolute fool if you're a christian and interpret the bible literally considering there are two different accounts on the story of origin.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,842
@previous (D)
Can you give me a brief summery of what the second creation story was in the second chapter of Genesis?
I heard there was another creation story right after the first.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,843
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,844
@314,839 (D)
I am not a Christian nor it seems are you.
Since you know both versions and I do NOT. Can you give me the simple version of each. First couplings with whom as the kids grow up to maturity and have their first offspring.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,845
@314,838 (A)
If you read Genesis carefully, he's only named Cain in the story of Cain and Abel. In other chapters his name is Jordan and it goes on to describe who Jordan's wife and children were.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,848
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,849
@314,845 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I've never read the bible before so I wouldn't know. I have been interested though. What is a good version to look into?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,850
@previous (A)
I don't really know the exact differences between the versions. The one I have is the New American Bible.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,851
@314,849 (A)
just use wikipedia god damn do you need someone to hold your hand for everything?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,852
@314,850 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I heard that the King James version is the most common version. Should I start with that?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,853
@previous (A)
you should start with harry potter and the philosopher's stone
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,854
@314,842 (A)
The first story of creation is simply a description of God creating the heavens and earth. The second story of creation is the story of God creating man.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,855
@314,852 (A)
The King James version is the most popular among fundies and cults (I actually like the way it reads too). It's fairly old-fashioned in terms of the vocabulary used, so if you're not into that kind of stuff, I'd skip it. I'd go for a simpler, more modern translation that's closer to the original texts as we know them. As for what that entails I don't know. That's not really my area of expertise. If you go to any church and the priest/clergyman/whatever I'm sure he'd be more than willing to help you out. Or you could ask MountainMan I guess. He knows this kind of stuff.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,856
@314,851 (D)
Wiki does not cut it when it comes to the issue of two distinct versions. However I just read this one top to bottom.
Examples such as "man is represented as having been made “in the image of God†, yet in chapter 2, he is merely “formed...of the dust of the ground†, thus suggesting a distinct contrast."
In neither case does it explain the issue of Adam & Eve then children.
YES there is "And Canaan begate Sidon his first borne.
No mention of who/whom Canaan had incest with.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,857
@314,845 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Sorry, I should have said Jared, not Jordon.
@314,849 (A)
Chapter 4 of Genesis describes the story of Cain and Abel. It says that Cain settled in the Land of Nod, East of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Cain also became the founder of a city, which he named after his son Enoch.
In the very next Chapter, the generations from Adam to Noah are described. There are a lot of inconsistencies just between chapter 4 and chapter 5, but what I find interesting is that Jared is the father of Enoch in this chapter, while Cain is the father of Enoch in the previous chapter. In then goes on to describe all the descendents of Enoch all the way down to Noah.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,860
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Why does this make me want to make a Genesis family tree on familyecho.com?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,863
@314,854 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Yes but (on the surface at least) it appears that there are two contradictory narratives. In Genesis 1 you have plants being present on the earth before humans:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. †And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning —the third day.
Genesis 1:11-13
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
[...]
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the sixth day.
Genesis 26-31
In Genesis 2, you have plants being present on the earth only after God created humans:
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:5-7
That's how I've always seen them to be inconsistent, at least.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,864
@314,857 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4) > Cain settled in the Land of Nod, East of Eden
OK so I hit the Great Google as provided by God almighty to ask about the Genesis of the Land of Nod, East of Eden
Nod = To Wander. Now a few students of History may remember the famous court case... Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925.
This issue came up in trial re Cains wife nor could any Christian of the time explain where she came from.
Really this Land of Nod outside of Eden was created how and when and by whom? Not mentioned in the bible.
Why is it important?
"Many skeptics have claimed that, for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other “races†of people on the earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve. To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account in Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history—a record on which many Old and New Testament doctrines depend.
Defenders of the gospel must be able to show that all human beings are descendants of one man and one woman (Adam and Eve)—as only those people who are descendants of Adam and Eve can be saved. Thus, believers need to be able to account for Cain's wife and show clearly that she was a descendant of Adam and Eve. (The relevant Bible passage is Genesis 4:1-5:5.)
(Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5) - Had a mass of kids.
The question is NOT NOT Answered yet made fun reading.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,867
@314,863 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well in the first chapter it describes vegetation including plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit, but makes no mention of shrubs or grass. Then in chapter 2 it says "while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and their was no man to till the soil."
I don't think it's implying that there was no vegetation before mankind, just that mankind had to come around for those plants to come about. Also note that in this version it calls them field shrubs and field grass. I think what we're actually reading here is the start of a creation myth for the dawn of agriculture. That's why it specifically says that man was needed to till the soil for these plants to exist and that's why it calls them field plants.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#314,868
@314,864 (B)
I always loved that answer because it is a classic case of cherry-picking scientific facts. On the one hand, it wants to profess young-earth creationism and deny the cosmological, geological, genetic etc. evidence that the universe is billions of years old, while at the same time it tries to explain why incest was okay because modern science tells us facts about genetics. It's really an interesting case of cognitive dissonance.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,870
@314,867 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Most of us go for the version where Eve eats the Apple so Plants have to be before Man.
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Biological deformities issues are discussed in
So I just learned that Incest was actually approved of and discussed in "Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages."
So with Incest OK at the GetGo nor did I know this until just now...The beginning now makes sense lolololo
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,871
@314,868 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
cognitive dissonance is a rather fancy way of saying plugging fingers in the ears and screaming 'BLABLABLA I AM NOT LISTENING'
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,872
@314,867 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Ah yeah I can see that now. It makes the distinction between plants which have seeds of their own (presumably ones that can grow without human action) and plants which require some agricultural knowledge to grow. I've seen this repeated before but I wonder if the words used for "vegetation" are different, and whether that vocabulary difference implies that distinction between plants that require human aid to grow and wild plants. I'll look that up now.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,874
@314,871 (D)
Well that's part of it. They're also saying something like "Genetics gives us knowledge about why incest was okay, but the theory of evolution (which genetics presupposes) is false." I just don't see how that sentence can be considered to be true by any rational person.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,875
@314,856 (B)
I just read this entire thing and I don't get it. Is Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 separate accounts of creation? This article seems to be against such a notion, but then it used Jesus as an example as to why they are not. How could Jesus possibly know rather or not they were written by the same person if they were written long before him?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,876
@314,874 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
because these people aren't rational, but under the delusion that they are. the beauty is being able to dichotomously extract what parts you want and what parts you don't. a term i've heard thrown around in regards to this is "cafeteria christians" because of the pick-and-choose options
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,878
@314,870 (B)
So Cain's wife was not from another human tribe and named Asia?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,879
> How could Jesus possibly know rather or not they were written by the same person if they were written long before him?
I don't think he made any attempt on clarifying Genesis.
@314,876 (D) > cafeteria christians" because of the pick-and-choose options
Not that they really have much choice. I mean sure they can just go with Dogma of "their" brand of Church.
Cafeteria is a very good example because just what version of the religion does one get...It depends on the Brand. Christians who do not follow Dogma of one brand can jump ship and pick and choose from a wide variety of brands under the Christian label.
Mormons created a fully brand new version with even their own Gold tablets that of course disappeared.
Most of references on Web call it the Land of Nod as in Wandering. However you cannot find how this other tribe came about or where or when or how or why.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,880
I fully admit to using wiki for a review of this non-denom. With GF's I have been to a few.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,883
@314,879 (B)
Could this story also be twisted to say that the story of Adam and Eve were during early hominid periods where humans were wandering tribes and that Cain's wife came from another tribe?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,884
@previous (A)
you can twist stories however you want when it comes to religious bullshit. it's whatever ultimately suits the purposes of the believer is how the choice is made. for example, mormon historians claim that joseph smith's authorship of the book of mormon describes plants and animals that did not exist in the americas until after columbus had arrived... the difference being that terms held different meanings to those people at the time and that they evolved, so essentially "pigs" were completely different animals back in nephite times versus how they are now.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,885
@314,883 (A)
Well fundamentalist young earth creationists would say no. I think more moderate christians would probably say the first two chapters of Genesis are largely metaphorical while still reflecting the true history of mankind. The best story that is consistent with evolution (to a point) is what the Bible is actually referring to. I don't know how compelling you find that (it seems to me to be an ad-hoc conjecture at best), but at least it's a somewhat coherent response.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,889
How did the Christians justify eating Pig meat, when the bible has rules against this. Book of Leviticus
“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to youâ€.
“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.†[Leviticus 11:7-8]
Anon D's Cafetiere Christians. Don't care for one rule/law just avoid it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,890
@314,885 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why have I had this urge to write a fictional story about Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, maybe Lilith, and maybe Steve just for a kick, where they were a wondering tribe that came to settle in what would letter be known in legends as Eden and Cain gets banished by his father to "The Lands of Nod" where he meets another tribe to which he met his wife and God is merely only implied but not mentioned much during the story?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,891
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,892
@314,890 (A)
judeochristian mythology is certainly interesting but all of the good parts are dismissed as non-canonical garbage, but it's fun to read about things such as demonology and the different hierarchies in hell and such. great mythos to use.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,893
@314,891 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I know not of what the setting might look like and I forgot to mention that "Eden" might be the fertile crescent.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,894
@previous (A)
Consider all that your artistic license. Think of it Bible fan-fiction, like the Book of Mormon. It doesn't really matter if it is consistent with the canon (or reality).
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,896
@314,893 (A)
A Fast and good read for reference and one of my fav Authors John Steinbeck - East of Eden.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,897
@314,894 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm well aware of that, but I do want it to be somewhat consistent to what an early hominid's world would be like. Probably for the beginning of it.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,906
@previous (A)
If you want to be mostly consistent with what the best science says, you'll need to look up what the current popularizers of anthropology have written. As to what books those are, I have absolutely no idea. Maybe Broseph can help you with that. If I recall correctly, he was an anthropology major in college, so he'd know more about it than me.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,908
@314,897 (A)
As you know the Bible does not make way for anything less then full blown Humans. No Cro-Magnon's need apply in Christianity or for that matter Judaism.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,931
@314,897 (A)
The Christian creation myth is closer to a story about what it would be like for the first horticulturalists/agriculturalists than the first early hominids. Since that was the only life the people who wrote it knew, they assumed that things has always been like that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,935
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
So would the connection to the fertile crescent be accurate? I kind of wanted to save the whole settling in Eden thing toward the end.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,937
@previous (A)
Yes, the fertile crescent would be very accurate, and if you think about it, pretty much all the places mentioned in the Bible are around that area.
I suggest reading a book called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. He lays out a theory about how the story of Cain and Abel is actually an allegory for land disputes between nomads and horticulturalists. That's why Abel tends a flock and sacrifices lamb to God, while Cain sacrifices plants that he cultivates.
Dead !Pool7hVoC2 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#314,944