• 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!

christians and jews, a few questions from genesis

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Dune posted 16 times all derisive, not one time allowing for others who may benefit from a constructive exchange.
Funny thing is, with the possible exception of your posts, everyone else posting here has agreed with him, except for Zorro, who was also perjorative.
Is it impossible that those may benefit from guidience, insight, wisdom that a reasoned response may bring?
If those folks had asked an appropriate question, we'd have appropriately answered it.
My offense is in your judgement,
Y'know, first off, it wasn't a judgment, it was an observation. Second, I don't need lessons in forum etiquette from you. I've participated in various other communal and educational forums enough to recognize and practice good etiquette. Of all the forums I've been part of, this one is the most perjorative in terms of the posts that are made. And this is a religious forum!
If it's true of me, it's true of most folks here.
you quote from the sermon on the mountaintop about pearl before swine, but you use it in the very way you accuse Tomas' of, to excluse, to judge, twisted out of context.
Not so. In Matt. 7:6, this dynamic is precisely what Jesus was talking about. "pearls" of wisdom cast before "swine" of derision, only to be trampled.
But best, the actual quote that you insist on using to condemn,
"Judge." "Condemn." Strong words for what never happened. To call one's bluff is not to either judge or condemn.
While the OP might have fallen under the "pearls" rule, anyone else who is engaged and willing to at least listen, then have I not ask a fish and you given a serpent?
No one's asked! It's all a moot point if no on e asks!
All of these passages refer to the ministry to the just and unjust, to prisoners and even the dead, but you seem to feel that no one will benefit because the original dirision, which I might add you have both fostered as much as the OP ever did. The passage doesn't refer to judging those you feel unworthy of the Word, if only one might than as a minister you are charged with facing all manner of derision if it will make you message known.
My "job" here isn't that of ministry.
Was the post challenging to your position, absolutely, but at this point in the mudslindging whilst others might (and HAVE) asked in more measured and reasoned tones, it is difficult to tell pearl from swine.
"More measured and reasoned tones" does not = "sincere."
 

s3v3n

Seeker of perspective
Why should I start a thread? I don't have any questions. If tomas wants to start a thread without mocking those he wants to answer him, I'm game.

Here again we cast stones, I've asked questions, genuine and sincere, those have been completely and repeatedly ignored. Case in point, I HAVE started thread asking specific questions concerning stories in the Bible which concern both Christianity and Judaism, without malice, they were ignored because they were not inflammatory. You call it a public forum, but then you limit your responses only to those people who in your view cannot, will not hear you.

S3V3N
 

Commoner

Headache
Funny thing is, with the possible exception of your posts, everyone else posting here has agreed with him, except for Zorro, who was also perjorative.

If those folks had asked an appropriate question, we'd have appropriately answered it.

Nope, I disagreed with him as well. I feel that arguing around the tone of the question is redundant. Either answer them or get out of the way. And I must say, while I might have chosen a different way to ask them than the OP, I find that they are (mostly) valid questions - to those believers that take the Bible literally, and I believe those are the people the questions were aimed at in the first place.

I'm still hoping someone will look past the perceived tone of the OP and muster the courage to actually answer the questions. The discussion on the appropriateness of the questions can be, at most, a side note IMO.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Here again we cast stones, I've asked questions, genuine and sincere, those have been completely and repeatedly ignored. Case in point, I HAVE started thread asking specific questions concerning stories in the Bible which concern both Christianity and Judaism, without malice, they were ignored because they were not inflammatory. You call it a public forum, but then you limit your responses only to those people who in your view cannot, will not hear you.

S3V3N
Wait a minute! How is that response "casting stones?" (Talk about twisting scripture!)
You asked why he didn't start another thread, and he answered (I thought very reasonably) that he didn't need to start a thread, because he didn't have any questions, himself. What's "stone casting" about that?!

BTW, who died and made you the referee here? Isn't that why we have moderators???:shrug:
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope, I disagreed with him as well. I feel that arguing around the tone of the question is redundant. Either answer them or get out of the way. And I must say, while I might have chosen a different way to ask them than the OP, I find that they are (mostly) valid questions - to those believers that take the Bible literally, and I believe those are the people the questions were aimed at in the first place.

I'm still hoping someone will look past the perceived tone of the OP and muster the courage to actually answer the questions. The discussion on the appropriateness of the questions can be, at most, a side note IMO.
Fine. to reiterate, if we're going to question the literature, we have to ask questions more basic to the literature first, if we're to understand the problems inherent in the text itself. I believe those more basic types of questions were laid out *by me* early on in the thread. If you're really curious, why not start there, and (as long as my answers are treated with the respect that they deserve) I'll endeavor to answer them for you.

But you have to ask the questions, if you want answers!
 

tomasortega

Active Member
i have also posted this thread in an "ask the pastor" section of a romanian christian forum. though after 4 days of waiting no pastor replied, then finally a regular member decided to have a go. this is what he said:

Well, I think your questions aren't too overwhelming... Yet, they are enough hard to answer them... Let me try to give an answer to some of them. Thanks.

About Sarah... She was really beautiful at that time in Gerar. And if pharaoh liked her, then it was his business. Nowadays, we see old people taken by young people...
About Satan... Yes, God created him. The Bible says Satan was a light angel first. And no, God didn't create speaking animals. Actually, it was Satan disguised as a crafty serpent. Remember, Satan caused Job's disease. So, he has a certain power to our world or animals.
About Cain... Yes, he was married to one of his sisters. You said it was about incest... Yes, right, but what different method could God have in order to assure the multiplication of the human race???
About inclination of people to evil... Yes, indeed, we all have it in our nature... God promised us victory against it by the Lord Jesus' work at cross... That's why Jesus died...
About Genesis 11:6... No, God didn't say they had unlimited powers. He wanted to say just their plan was too bad and it required an intervention of God...

__________________
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
BTW, Commoner, take a quick look at posts #6-9. Your polite question in 6 was answered politely by him in 7. Your response to him in #8 was of the same accusative, pejorative flavor as the OP. He responded kindly in 9. It seems as though you are as much to blame as the others!

However, if you wanna play nice, I'll answer any questions put to me as honestly as I can.
 

tomasortega

Active Member
here, ill ask you an HONEST question. see if you want to answer it....

in leviticus 20: 20,21 god says: 20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. 21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

my honest question is. what is meant by "be/die childless"? is god saying that a man who sleeps with his aunt, and a man who sleeps with his brother's wife will as punishment not be able to have children (impregnate women)? HONEST QUESTION.


lets see if you can hold up your promise of answering "honest questions"
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
here, ill ask you an HONEST question. see if you want to answer it....

in leviticus 20: 20,21 god says: 20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. 21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

my honest question is. what is meant by "be/die childless"? is god saying that a man who sleeps with his aunt, and a man who sleeps with his brother's wife will as punishment not be able to have children (impregnate women)? HONEST QUESTION.


lets see if you can hold up your promise of answering "honest questions"

Answer: It probably doesn't mean that God will supernaturally render a physically normal person unable to have children. It could refer to capital punishment. Thus they die childless. But honestly, I'm not aware of any research that shows how or even whether the ancient Hebrews regarded or implemented this penalty.
 
just a few things i am not clear on, in the book of genesis. see if you can help me out...


in chapter 3 verse 1 it says that the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals god had made..... does that mean that god created crafty animals? and isnt satan the serpent? if so then doesnt that mean that god created satan? also, since god created the serpent, and the serpent could speak and hold a conversations with humans, does that mean that god created speaking animals?

I will make an attempt here, although not one person will know all answers, they are I believe in the bible scriptures you just have to be serious and dedicated to find them.
obviously the serpent was exactly what the meaning states, it was a creeping thing, yet intelligent, if something literally does not sound logical then it has a different meaning. We have limited mental faculties so our understanding must be put aside and then search for the answers in the book, the answers are there! We can only reason about what reality is for us here, we cannot use reason of things that do not make sense or that we cannot see.
Creeping things according to the bible, glide swiftly. We cannot use our imagination so keep digging in the bible.
notice that there were a male and female created in Gen 1, and they may have been a species of men. God did not breathe into their nostrils so they were alive, with no spirit. Adam the second species did have a god breathed spirit called a soul. Eve was the mother of all living because there were "beasts of the field" which are live men probably aborigines, but who knows? Symbolism is all over the place and the meaning is in the scriptures.




in chapter 4 verse 17 it says cain lay with his wife.... well who was his wife? cain was only the third human wasnt he? only other option we have is that cain married and commited incest with one of his sisters.....

Cain obviously did not stay and Adam and Eve did not have anymore children until years later, the bible states this very clearly. Seth was born first then after him Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters. You must nit pic through chapters and take notes. Cain was not Adams son so who's son was he? Cloning? Artifical insemination with the other previous male in gen 1? It is not clear how Cain was born because of the word "gotten" and also since Eve listened and obeyed not God then the satan became her lord.

in chapter 6 verse 2. it speaks of sons of god and daughters of men... who were the sons of god? angels? if so, are angels physical beings that can impregnate humans? and what is the outcome? half angel half human? chapter 19 verse 3 tells us angels can eat food.....

Artifical insemination? To create a copy?

chapter 6 verse 4 tells us about the nephilim(giants). were they human too? (adam and eve's offspring)? if not, what were they?

??

in chapter 8, the last part of verse 21 god says that humans are evil from childhood. which means that humans have no choice in or control over their evil nature. yes, humans can control their actions, and keep from acting upon their wicked desires, but they can not control their inclination towards evil, anymore than they can control the color of their skin, or culture they are born into. because thats how god created them. do you agree?

It states their imagination of their heart's evil, so get the words straight and they are born full of trouble in the book of job.


in chapter 9 verse 2 god says " the fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth.." and yet we have tigers, lions, crocodiles, bears and countless other animals.. so far i havent seen a tiger tremble with fear and take of running at the sight of a human.....

Because that animal senses fear........come on, men have learned to fear.
Fear is learned and not innate.


in chapter 9 verse 20 to 27 noah gets drunk and naked, and rather than god punishing him, and making him apologise for setting a bad example for his sons, not only doesnt god intervene, but he also lets noah curse ham for calling him out on his shameful behavior.
Ham had sex with his mother, Noah's wife he had the right to curse Canaan, Ham was not cursed.


in gen 11: 6 god says that nothing is impossible for people to do, and so confuses their languages. did god really think that his limited creation had unlimited powers? he certainly said it.

Yep

gen 11:29 did nahor marry his brother's daughter?

don't know and don't care. If he did doesn't matter God allowed stupidity and ignorance he "Winked" at. And that is in the Bible.

gen 12: 11-19 why did god punish pharaoh for taking abram's wife in good faith, and did not punish abram for lying to and deceiving pharaoh about sarai? not to mention the lack of faith abram had in god after god promised to protect him in egypt. abram chose to take matters into his own hands rather than let got take care of him...... same thing happens in chapter 20 with kin abimelech of gerar.
That was Abrams consequence for not doing what God said, read it and see.

another interesting thing to note is that sarai was around 70 years old in egypt and around 90 years old in gerar. does it really make sense for a pharaoh and king who has access to all the beautiful young virgins to choose and be attracted to a 70 and 90 year old GRANNY instead?


in gen 19 verse 8, LOT offers his own two daughters up for rape, and even advertises them as "virgins". besides the fact that it is a despicable thing to do, verse 14 shows us that lot lied about his daughters being virgins. again, god does not object, but rather finds him and his daughters righteous and saves them, knowing that his daughters were just as wicked as the sodomites and would later commit adultery and incest with their own father.....which leads us to the "love" scene in the caves (if you are under 18 please stop reading now, or get permission from your parents)..... gen 19: 31-36, how exactly can a man who knows he is in a cave alone with his two daughters, get so drunk that he does not know he is havingsexual intercourse with his daughters, yet at the same time keep and erection all throughout his "unconsiousness"? that must have been some magic wine...... also how did the author of this passage know the girl's private conversation in the cave when there was no one else around but them???



gen 19:25 why does god kill the vegetation too? were the plants gay? or was he just trying to make a point? cause god knows a point couldnt have been made if he only killed the people right?


gen 22:2 would you kill your children for god? if god told you to kill your children to prove your love is greater for him than for your children, would you do it? simple question. please dont say "god wouldnt ask such a thing of me" its a purely hypothetical question. if he did ask, would you do it?


gen 29 :23 were people back then really too dumb to know who they were sleeping with? i know it was dark, but they had candles and other forms of light, and even if they didnt, people have other senses besides sight.



gen 32:30 jacob claims to have survived seeing god face to face, but god clearly says in multiple verses that no one can see his face and live....




in gen 34 god's people lied on an oath, and then murdered their unsuspecting victims when they were down. this not only diminishes the good word and reputation of god's people, it also makes them backstabbing cowards. since when is revenge a good thing? and since when does one rape justify mass murder?


in gen 38 9 and 10 god kills onan for spilling his semen(birthcontrol) when forced to impregnate his dead brother's (the one god killed for being wicked) wife, but god does not even object when judah solicits a prostitute and commits adultery in verse 15+......... so birthcontrol is a sin punishable by death, prostitution/adultery is no biggie?

Do you know anything about Onan? Check him out and you have your answer!


I have answered some of your questions, but your not even quoting or understanding what you read. reread them and try again.
God Bless
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
just a few things i am not clear on, in the book of genesis. see if you can help me out...


in chapter 3 verse 1.... and isnt satan the serpent?

Couldn't be; In Genisis God curses the snake to "crawl on his belly all of his days", yet later, in Job, we find Satan "walking";

Job 1:7 (King James Version)


7And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.


What happened to the curse?
 
Couldn't be; In Genisis God curses the snake to "crawl on his belly all of his days", yet later, in Job, we find Satan "walking";

Job 1:7 (King James Version)


7And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.


What happened to the curse?

the serpent was cursed to eat, (partake of ) dust! find your meaning for dust and you will find out what the serpent is.
figures of speech are very helpful in understanding. Word play is also a must when reading the Bible.
 
the serpent was cursed to eat, (partake of ) dust! find your meaning for dust and you will find out what the serpent is.
figures of speech are very helpful in understanding. Word play is also a must when reading the Bible.


the word touch could also as a figure of speech mean to lay with. Lots of hanky panky there with someone.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
here, ill ask you an HONEST question. see if you want to answer it....

in leviticus 20: 20,21 god says: 20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. 21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

my honest question is. what is meant by "be/die childless"? is god saying that a man who sleeps with his aunt, and a man who sleeps with his brother's wife will as punishment not be able to have children (impregnate women)? HONEST QUESTION.


lets see if you can hold up your promise of answering "honest questions"
In ancient Israel, shame/honor were imbedded in sexual identity. Men embodied honor, women embodied shame. For a man to "uncover [another man's] nakedness" was to act shamefully and bring shame to an honorable person.

Also in play was the theological stance that God's blessing (and salvation) was borne in the children. To "die childless" meant that God's blessing could not be expected to come to bear in one who acted shamefully.
 
In ancient Israel, shame/honor were imbedded in sexual identity. Men embodied honor, women embodied shame. For a man to "uncover [another man's] nakedness" was to act shamefully and bring shame to an honorable person.

Also in play was the theological stance that God's blessing (and salvation) was borne in the children. To "die childless" meant that God's blessing could not be expected to come to bear in one who acted shamefully.


Thanks for your post, if the original poster is seriously wanting answers then he may be encouraged to search more deeply with the insight of others.:clap
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Couldn't be; In Genisis God curses the snake to "crawl on his belly all of his days", yet later, in Job, we find Satan "walking";
Since the author of that story had no concept of Satan, it could not have been Satan. The Serpent is symbolic of Wisdom, who is often portrayed in ancient Babylonian and Assyrian myth as a "trickster."
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
the serpent was cursed to eat, (partake of ) dust! find your meaning for dust and you will find out what the serpent is.

I think what you're saying is, "Use one of the Biblical implications of dust--- ie. Man; "remember thou art dust---and you can resolve the contradiction"

figures of speech are very helpful in understanding. Word play is also a must when reading the Bible.

Thanks for the tip, but I already knew that. ;)

Of course that raises the question; where do we read Genesis literally, and where do we read it symbolically (and just using symbolism as a handy way to resolve contradictions in a literal interpretation is cheating)?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Of course that raises the question; where do we read Genesis literally, and where do we read it symbolically (and just using symbolism as a handy way to resolve contradictions in a literal interpretation is cheating)?
Most (if not all)of Genesis is allegory and "urban myth." In the first several chapters, we find almost shameless rip-offs of earlier Babylonian and Assyrian myth. We find the same stories being told over and over again, with slightly different detail and different characters.
Genesis is not history in the sense that we understand history. It is closer to the German concept of Geschichte. Facts are not as important as the big story. The truth to be found there isn't in the picayune facts, but in the overarching themes of the pericopae and epics included.
 
I think what you're saying is, "Use one of the Biblical implications of dust--- ie. Man; "remember thou art dust---and you can resolve the contradiction"



Thanks for the tip, but I already knew that. ;)

Of course that raises the question; where do we read Genesis literally, and where do we read it symbolically (and just using symbolism as a handy way to resolve contradictions in a literal interpretation is cheating)?


There are no contradictions!
The entire bible interprets itself.
Symbolism is interpreted with symbolism in the bible. It takes alot of reading and rereading and taking notes and asking for wisdom for all topics.

I have read the bible for 4 years everyday minimum of 2 hrs and mostly 8 to 10 hours a day, and still to this day I read a scripture and finally piece it with another scripture get the wisdom and find the meaning.
by the way take out all the words in italics in the bible, reread it and find out how the added italics by men have taken away the true meaning of the scripture.:yes:
 
Most (if not all)of Genesis is allegory and "urban myth." In the first several chapters, we find almost shameless rip-offs of earlier Babylonian and Assyrian myth. We find the same stories being told over and over again, with slightly different detail and different characters.
Genesis is not history in the sense that we understand history. It is closer to the German concept of Geschichte. Facts are not as important as the big story. The truth to be found there isn't in the picayune facts, but in the overarching themes of the pericopae and epics included.

Ancient History does alot for helping ones understanding of the lives of the people of the book. Not a pretty sight mostly.:cover: But very interesting.
 
Top