cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
I think I was honest, and I do not see it as picking a fight. Just speaking with the same level of conviction afforded to others.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible errancy discussion
- Thread starter Matthew78
- Start date
You literally do not know what you're talking about. It's rather amazing when you stop and think about it. Are you sure you wouldn't like a do-over?
tripleog2010
Member
pI wrote a book on this stuff, and I'm finding that there are a lot of inconsistencies. And while I think a lot of the Bible is true, a lot of it isn't. One of the biggest things I've found is that the Pauline epistles have about 5 instances where Paul appears to be swearing oaths, but swearing of oaths is forbidden by Christ. If Paul was taught directly by Christ, then he would have known better than to swear oaths. So to me the writings are corrupted.
I couldn't figure out why the so-called "Christian" churches come up with such stupid doctrines. I suppose the root of the cause may be because the Bible is a corrupted document as a whole. I'm sure I didn't get all of the inconsistencies documented in my book, but I have enough to just leave it all alone.
The Grace of Repentance: Keeping God's Commandments Grace, Repentance, Christian, Jesus Christ, God's Commandments
Writings sh
I couldn't figure out why the so-called "Christian" churches come up with such stupid doctrines. I suppose the root of the cause may be because the Bible is a corrupted document as a whole. I'm sure I didn't get all of the inconsistencies documented in my book, but I have enough to just leave it all alone.
The Grace of Repentance: Keeping God's Commandments Grace, Repentance, Christian, Jesus Christ, God's Commandments
Writings sh
tripleog2010
Member
My view on this is as follows: What motivation would the Roman Catholic Church have in producing a clean set of "Scriptures?" That church is clearly pagan in nature. I think the CAtholics and Protestants jacked up the true scriptures. So to me, the Bible is a spiritual minefield.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Apparently I do not need to, because you have the power to interpret my meaning and alter what I say, and tell me what I really meant :sorry1:
Raymond Sheen
Member
You have to ask yourself how much time passed. I think sometimes people read the Bible as if it were necessarily a short time in between Adam's creation, his sin and the events that followed. That isn't the case. In a few verses you could get a thousand years or more (See my post on Biblical timeline)
The Bible doesn't support a literal 144 hour creation. I don't know that that would change your postulation, though, since Adam was created on the sixth creative period. It becomes a question of how much time lapsed afterwards.
Genesis 1:26-27 NIV
The only way, imo, to reconcile Gen. 1:26-27 and Genesis 4:13-14 is to realize that Adam and Eve were, in the mist of other people and therefore, NOT the very first people to have occupied the earth.
How I describe the six days of creation is for another thread.
The us was Jehovah God and his firstborn only begotten son, Christ Jesus, in his pre-human spirit existence.
Raymond Sheen
Member
[Edit] Note to the reader, this post consists of material that I have posted elsewhere on the Internet. After nearly 20 years of doing this I have a great deal of material that I have used for the same sort of discussions. I guess that isn't fair and I will be editing and rewording all of the posts that I have made here using this method. I have an inactive forum which I use to store this stuff, but I have also posted much of it on other forums. I haven't plagarized anyone, they are my own words, but I will try and reword all of that stuff to make it right and not do it again. My forum can be found at this link: The Pathway Machine
The question of if it is okay to swear or take an oath is a relatively simple one to answer, but it can become somewhat more complicated when considering the proper reason for doing so. To simply answer the question, the answer is yes, it is okay. The alleged contradiction can be resolved by recognizing that Jesus and James were advising against the frivolous oath taking that had become an unfortunate habit of the Jewish people. Making an oath by the heavens, earth, and Jerusalem as a sort of collateral which they had no real authority over. It was, Jesus and James were pointing out, more significant to be honest and truthful in all matters so that it wasn't necessary to establish every trivial detail by a frivolous oath, undermining not only your integrity but those things that belonged to Jehovah God or his appointed king. (Matthew 5:34-37 / James 5:12 Also see Matthew 23:16-22)
Jesus wasn’t prohibiting the taking of an oath as is evident by his giving answer without objection to being placed under oath before the high priest at his own trial. (Matthew 26:63-64)
An oath is a statement stressing the truthfulness of something someone promises to do or not to do. There are two Hebrew words translated as oath; shevuah, which is an oath or sworn statement. Shava is a related term that means “swear” and comes from the same root as the Hebrew word for “seven,” so swear originally meant to be under the influence of seven things. (Genesis 21:27-32) Beer-sheba means “well of the oath” or “well of seven.” (Genesis 26:28-33). Shevuah doesn't contain the connotation of a curse or hardship placed upon the person making the oath should he not fulfill it.
The other Hebrew word translated as oath is alah, meaning "oath, cursing" or "oath of obligation." (Genesis 24:41; 26:28)
The Greek horkos, "oath" and omnyo, "swear" are both found in James 5:12. The Greek anathematizo means to bind with a curse. (Acts 23:12, 14, 21)
The question of if it is okay to swear or take an oath is a relatively simple one to answer, but it can become somewhat more complicated when considering the proper reason for doing so. To simply answer the question, the answer is yes, it is okay. The alleged contradiction can be resolved by recognizing that Jesus and James were advising against the frivolous oath taking that had become an unfortunate habit of the Jewish people. Making an oath by the heavens, earth, and Jerusalem as a sort of collateral which they had no real authority over. It was, Jesus and James were pointing out, more significant to be honest and truthful in all matters so that it wasn't necessary to establish every trivial detail by a frivolous oath, undermining not only your integrity but those things that belonged to Jehovah God or his appointed king. (Matthew 5:34-37 / James 5:12 Also see Matthew 23:16-22)
Jesus wasn’t prohibiting the taking of an oath as is evident by his giving answer without objection to being placed under oath before the high priest at his own trial. (Matthew 26:63-64)
An oath is a statement stressing the truthfulness of something someone promises to do or not to do. There are two Hebrew words translated as oath; shevuah, which is an oath or sworn statement. Shava is a related term that means “swear” and comes from the same root as the Hebrew word for “seven,” so swear originally meant to be under the influence of seven things. (Genesis 21:27-32) Beer-sheba means “well of the oath” or “well of seven.” (Genesis 26:28-33). Shevuah doesn't contain the connotation of a curse or hardship placed upon the person making the oath should he not fulfill it.
The other Hebrew word translated as oath is alah, meaning "oath, cursing" or "oath of obligation." (Genesis 24:41; 26:28)
The Greek horkos, "oath" and omnyo, "swear" are both found in James 5:12. The Greek anathematizo means to bind with a curse. (Acts 23:12, 14, 21)
Last edited:
Raymond Sheen
Member
[Edit] Note to the reader, this post consists of material that I have posted elsewhere on the Internet. After nearly 20 years of doing this I have a great deal of material that I have used for the same sort of discussions. I guess that isn't fair and I will be editing and rewording all of the posts that I have made here using this method. I have an inactive forum which I use to store this stuff, but I have also posted much of it on other forums. I haven't plagarized anyone, they are my own words, but I will try and reword all of that stuff to make it right and not do it again. My forum can be found at this link: The Pathway Machine
Explanation Of Difficulties In The Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke
The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.
The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)
From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.
Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.
Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.
The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)
Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?
Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)
There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26 / 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.
Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2 / Nehemiah 12:1 / Hagai 1:14 / Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
Problems With Lukes Genealogy?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24 / 11:12 / 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.
Bible Lists Of Jesus' Genealogy
Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.
1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).
Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).
Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).
Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).
Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.
Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.
Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:27).
Explanation Of Difficulties In The Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke
The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.
The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)
From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.
Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.
Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.
The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)
Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?
Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)
There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26 / 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.
Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2 / Nehemiah 12:1 / Hagai 1:14 / Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
Problems With Lukes Genealogy?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24 / 11:12 / 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.
Bible Lists Of Jesus' Genealogy
Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.
1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).
Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).
Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).
Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).
Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.
Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.
Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:27).
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Your copious copy/paste job laden with irrelevant information, and your blatant plagiarism aside, I'm assuming you go along with "most scholars," that Luke's inclusion of "Cainan" in his genealogy is an error. Good! It isn't often one meets a Biblical apologists who admits the Bible has errors in it.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
So these "other people" would be Cain's siblings? and people lived over a thousand years?
I just don't see where people live over a thousand years in the OT.
Again, augmented longevity could only explain this possibility.
I agree with you.
Do you interpret Genesis 1-5 as literal and symbolic?
I altered nothing. You simply refuse to take responsibility for your comments. It's transparent and it's cowardly.
Raymond Sheen
Member
We can't say for sure but it would seem that the water canopy surrounding the Earth when it was created caused a much different climate and radiation levels before the flood. It would have been a tropic to subtropic climate. The sudden release of all of that water would have caused the poles to dramatically change to what they are today. This is why they find mammoths with vegetation frozen in their mouths and stomachs. The age span dramatically decreased after the flood.
Literal. Not symbolic.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
So how do you explain the days and nights in Genesis 1. If you think they are periods of time, then you have symbolism.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
I wondered what your whining was about, so I went back and checked.:yes:
I see now. You didn't call me on scholars you were insulting me for something else :sad:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Interesting thread I must say. Thank you Mattew78!
Sound like a discussion/debate about Cain. My question is if the account of Adam and Eve is a historical account and Adam and Eve were the first people on the earth. Why, after Cain kills Abel, is Cain worried about the "other people". It's only Adam, Eve and Cain, now that Abel is dead.
Genesis 4:13-14 NIV
The story of Adam and Eve, imo, has to be allegorical to fit within the Adam and Eve story and comply with God's sixth day creation, mankind.
Genesis 1:26-27 NIV
The only way, imo, to reconcile Gen. 1:26-27 and Genesis 4:13-14 is to realize that Adam and Eve were, in the mist of other people and therefore, NOT the very first people to have occupied the earth.
How I describe the six days of creation is for another thread.
I've been harping on such notions for years.
Glad to see I'm not alone after all....
Try your hand under the topic..
'for bible literalists:it was god's intention to leave.....'
The try...
'for bible literalists:How are Gen1 and Gen 2 both correct?
These topics were posted by someone who doesn't believe...at all.
and are good examples of how discussions revolve around here.
frubals for you.
waitasec
Veteran Member
then how do you reconcile the tree of knowledge of good and evil with those other people? did they have knowledge of good and evil or not?
if you happen to take this account literally of course...
These quotes seem to be clear enough:
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
waitasec
Veteran Member