1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them

2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

This implies that God had sons that intermarried with the daughters of man.

3. And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

"He is also flesh? That implies god is of flesh, too. And 120 years? That's a pretty precise number. I'm going to look for examples when man has lived longer than that. I know the oldest man in recently recorded history lived to be 160. He was a farmer in England and when his incredible age was learned by the king, at the time, he was brought to Buckingham Palace. Apparently the rich food they fed him killed him and he died that night in a bed in the palace.

4. There were giants in the earth in those days: and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.

5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it frieved him at his heart.

7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

So, god doesn't appreciate the fact that man has used his free will for evil, even though there's no record of god telling them not to. Heh.

8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

9. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

It's taught that Jesus was the only perfect man, but it says right there that the generations of Noah were perfect and that Noah was a just man, himself.

10. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

11. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

What was "his way"? It's never described. So, he just gave man freewill so that man could choose his way?

13. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them: and corrupted his way upon the earth.

14. Make thee an ark of gopher wood: room shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

I'm not sure what 14 means. Any suggestions?

15. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: the length of ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit, shalt thou finish it above: and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereod: with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

17. And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18. But with thee will I establish my covenant: and thou shalt come into the ark; thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives, with thee.

19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind; of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21. And take thou unto thee of all good that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for good for thee and for them.

22. Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

What is a cubit?

Cheers,

Lost

The 'sons of god' can be construed as either the demons that were banished to earth, aliens (if you so subscribe to that), or angels. Look up the original Hebrew for the clearest definition.

On the age, i cant comment, i have no clue what that means. Perhaps if were for the sonsof the'sons of god'? And well if man was created almost exactly as God, then it doesnt seem impossible to think of Him as a real person just like we are. But why does that hold any significance?

Yes there is. God told A&E NOT to eat of the tree. They chose of their free will to do so. Sin.

Agan, look at the Hebrew text

Umm, make an Ark out of gopher wood maybe? Then coat the inside and outside with pitch? (tar)

18 inches, approximately the length of the outstretches fingers,hand, and forearm.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Yes there is. God told A&E NOT to eat of the tree. They chose of their free will to do so. Sin.

God said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate of the tree. I imagine that they had no idea what death was like as it hadn't happened before to anyone they know and how could they have known that something is evil before eating from a tree that supposedly lets you know what is evil or not?

I'm sure God could've done better in terms of warnings anyways and perhaps not have created such idiots in the first place who would get tricked by the first bad guy that comes along. How about warning them about the serpent too? I'm sure it wouldn't have hurt to mention that there's a certain creature that tells lies.

God made humans such as they would want knowledge and would be tricked real easily. It's like letting a child be tricked by a rapist(just come to my house for candy! It'll be ok!) and then blaming the child for being tricked. Way to go, God.



[This message has been edited by R_I (edited 03-30-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by R_I:

God said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate of the tree. I imagine that they had no idea what death was like as it hadn't happened before to anyone they know and how could they have known that something is evil before eating from a tree that supposedly lets you know what is evil or not?

It never said that they died... So, where does death come into play? I think you're getting the story of Cain and Abel mixed up with Adam and Eve.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by R_I:

I'm sure God could've done better in terms of warnings anyways and perhaps not have created such idiots in the first place who would get tricked by the first bad guy that comes along. How about warning them about the serpent too? I'm sure it wouldn't have hurt to mention that there's a certain creature that tells lies.



[/qoute]

If you review the first few chapters I've left annotated in the archives you'll see that "the serpent" doesn't do anything particularily evil. And supposedly god created man with freewill just so they would be faultered, unlike the angels.

Argon, I appreciate your responses. They are articulate and educated. I'd appreciate it is more, though, you if you would give proper examples of the passages you're responding to. I.E: 9::12, 9::3, 9::7, etc...

The first number stands for the chapter number the second number is the passage.

Cheers,

Lost

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 03-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

It never said that they died... So, where does death come into play? I think you're getting the story of Cain and Abel mixed up with Adam and Eve.

Funnily enough, this is something that I've asked Christians about and I'll talk about their answer in a minute. Let's have a look at the Bible passages first:

Genesis 2:16-17

16:And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17:But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:1-5

1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

So it seems clear that Adam and Eve would die on the day that they eat of the tree. The problem is, they didn't, right? I would note that it's only like the KJV that mentions them dying on the same day. My NIV only mentions dying.

The Christian reponses would be that they died a spiritual death where they now needed sacrifices to be saved or something.



quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

If you review the first few chapters I've left annotated in the archives you'll see that "the serpent" doesn't do anything particularily evil. And supposedly god created man with freewill just so they would be faultered, unlike the angels.

Satan was an angel right? He sinned, right? Could he have sinned without free will?

I'd say that the serpent did something pretty evil. Tricking a whole species into damning themselves is pretty bad. Besides, why would God go to the trouble of cursing snakes if it was all good?

I don't see how giving man free will is enough to then blame him when Adam and Eve were innocent and again lacking the proper warnings. This would be compounded further if they did actually die a spiritual death. I'm sure they would've been wondering what the hell it meant.

Again, that's like telling a child that they'll die if they go do something dangerous. I don't think it's an adequate warning if they have never seen death before.



Now, I just want to comment on the Sons of God thing. Consider this Bible verse:

Job 2:1

1: Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

This seems to imply that the sons of God are in fact angels. Indeed, in my NIV Bible the footer for that verse and for the term angels says "Hebrew the sons of god".

Now, to avoid ideas of angels getting it on with mortal woman back in the old days to produce the Nephilim that were there before the flood and after(gasp! did they survive the flood or something? I think it means that the group continued after the flood with new members), my pastor proposed that "sons of god" refers to the line of Seth and "daughters of man" refers to the line of Cain. Here is some stuff from a site:

Cain's line



Lamech introduces polygamy (Gen 4:19)

Jubal Invents music (for entertainment?) (Gen 4:21)

Tubal-Cain was an instructor in Iron and Brass (perhaps the beginning of building of idols?) (Gen 4:22)

Lamech murders (Gen 4:23)



Seth's line

Began to call upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26)

Enoch walked with God and was translated (picture of rapture) (Gen 5:18, 22-24, Heb 11:5)

The other Lamech is born who is the father of Noah (Gen 5:25)

Noah's testimony (Gen 6:8-9)

Do a search for "sons +of god seth's line" for the conflicting view.

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

Satan was an angel right? He sinned, right? Could he have sinned without free will?.

- Satan was granted temporary freewill because he was gods favorite angel and god wanted his opinion. The supposed current state of Satan is one of no freewill. He can't do anything without asking gods permission.

"I'd say that the serpent did something pretty evil. Tricking a whole species into damning themselves is pretty bad. Besides, why would God go to the trouble of cursing snakes if it was all good?"

- But, it doesn't really say that the serpent tricked them. All it says is that the serpent tells her the truth. He dispells gods lie that they'll die if they eat from the tree and that if they do they will be like gods. So, he actually doesn't trick them. In fact, it kind of sounds like he's trying to help them. Also, nowhere there does it refer to the serpent as Satan.

quote:Originally posted by R_I:



Again, that's like telling a child that they'll die if they go do something dangerous. I don't think it's an adequate warning if they have never seen death before.



- Good point. This is where I thought of Cain and Abel and the famous question: How did Cain know he was going to kill Abel if there had never been a human death before?

Cheers,

Lost

R_I: Satan was an angel right? He sinned, right? Could he have sinned without free will?.

LostCause: Satan was granted temporary freewill because he was gods favorite angel and god wanted his opinion. The supposed current state of Satan is one of no freewill. He can't do anything without asking gods permission.

Assuming that 1/3 of the angels in heaven fell with Lucifer, they would have all had to have free will as well. Even if they were under Lucifer's authority at the time, there wouldn't be any need to send them to hell. God would just remove Lucifer's control over them and send him to hell, while keeping the rest in heaven. So unless God was incapable of removing Satan's control over them, the only other possibility is that they freely chose to rebel against God. Also...

"He can't do anything without asking gods permission."

That would imply that he has free will but limited power. Wouldn't you say?

Genesis 6:14

KJV -- Make thee an ark of gopher wood: room shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

NEB -- Make yourself an ark with ribs of cypress; cover it with reeds and coat it inside and out with pitch.

It doesnt matter anyway, if God tells you not to do something that should be reason enough.

The serpent did not dispell any lie from God. God said they would die. They did. The tree wasnt poisonous, it broke Adam/Eves bond to God and he could no longer have anything to do with him so far as being physically close.

Satan created a doubt in Eves mind. He made her question what God had said. He gave her a half truth and used it to leverage his lie.

Now, Satan said they wont die. God says they will. Nowhere else does God proclaim sin, however Satan does this constantly.

Now who are we to believe is the liar in this situation?

For Adam, he willingly sinned. Eve gave him fruit and he ate. Eve was tricked, so God went a little easier on her (after all, women are pretty easy to lie to, no offense).

But compare the child to Adam. He had to have been extremely intelligent. Second only to God. Photographic memory, you name it (he had to remember all the animals names, and there were more than there are today).

However the child has a very limited time here onearth. He is curious to know, but lacks intelligence to learn without experience. Tell him fire hot and astupid person will test that, however a smart person will feel the surrounding air and note that temperature increases with proximity to the fire.

See my point? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

LostCause:

Before I start, I'll just mention that I am an atheist and find similar problems to the ones that you talk about.

Oh, and to understand your perspective a little better, are you religious? If so, which one do you follow?

Satan was granted temporary freewill because he was gods favorite angel and god wanted his opinion. The supposed current state of Satan is one of no freewill. He can't do anything without asking gods permission.

Hmm, your definition of free will which is based on permission is strange. I'm sure Satan could make a choice and attempt it or something even though he is not allowed to do such and such.

I hold the opinion that Satan had no free will and that Adam and Eve had no free will as well in that they could only do what God had created them to them given the starting causes of creation. They had no choice but to do what God had envisioned would be the resulting timeline of this particular creation. If you want, I'll just post the argument that shows that Adam and Eve had no free will and were God's puppets instead.



But, it doesn't really say that the serpent tricked them. All it says is that the serpent tells her the truth. He dispells gods lie that they'll die if they eat from the tree and that if they do they will be like gods. So, he actually doesn't trick them. In fact, it kind of sounds like he's trying to help them. Also, nowhere there does it refer to the serpent as Satan.

Please provide the chapter and verse that states that the serpent told Adam and Eve the truth.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here so bear with me as I use the Christian responses. The serpent doesn't tell her the truth because that very day they had a spiritual death and would be condemned to Hell if they did not get saved by a sacrifice. I imagine they used animals back in the day before Jesus came along.

Also, I wonder about God cursing snakes too. Why curse snakes when maybe Satan only assumed their form. Or perhaps it was a baddy that was different from Satan and that it was really a talking snake that God made. Still, cursing all snakes makes no sense to me. Are you saying that there was indeed a talking snake that God made and that it wasn't actually Satan in disguise?

It's kinda hard to have this sort of discussion because I find the explanations ridiculous anyway but it passes the time so hey.

EDIT:

Oh yeah, how do you reconcile God supposedly lying with:

Titus 1:2

[2]In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

[This message has been edited by R_I (edited 03-30-2005).]

First I would advise: remember, when you are reading the bible, you're reading separate texts written by many authors dealing with upwards of 6 different gods, compiled by the Naracean cuonsel, a pagan organization, in the 2nd century.

Next I woul advise to remember how different Hebrew & English are, and remember the King James Version was translated by scribes who didnt understand hebrew too well. They did the best they could, but the difference between text and meaning was something not many people had a good grip on for a thousand and a half years later. Take this for example,

Original text:

"That chick is so totally hot."

Translation by scribes who dont understand very well:

"That chicken, being of a very young age, is exeedingly high in temperature, in the completeness of it's being."

Make sense?

Now, 'also' could have meant "indeed" in this context. Or, this being either Yahweh, or Jehova (I've been studying gospels for the last three years, a tad rusty over here) all the hatred is understandable. Both Yahweh, and Jehova were supremely vengeful gods. Them being 'flesh also' would not surprise me.

Happy Studying,



-Uncle Rusty

ArgonPlasma2000:

It doesnt matter anyway, if God tells you not to do something that should be reason enough.

No. I don't think Adam and Eve knew that it was evil to disobey. How can you know what is evil or not before eating from the tree of knowledge? Just telling a child not to run onto the road and telling them that they will die if they do is woefully inadequate. In fact, does the parent not pull the child back as they start to run onto the road? Why didn't God appear and go shoo to the serpent to protect his humans? Or perhaps the child should have the free will to run onto the road.



But compare the child to Adam. He had to have been extremely intelligent. Second only to God. Photographic memory, you name it (he had to remember all the animals names, and there were more than there are today).

Still, I don't think he would've known what evil and dying was before eating from the tree so he had good knowledge but was lacking some important bits.

And with all this intelligence, Adam still sinned? Was disobeying God a stupid thing to do? If so, why would God-created humans do a stupid thing?

And Adam hadn't seen the consequences of sinning before. There was no warning sign like someone gets when they get close to a fire. If Adam and Eve were properly warned and they still sinned then I would say that yeah, they were stupid shits and had the responsibility.

To quote my good friend William Law:

The Fall was a gradual process, consummate only after numerous completely coherent betrayals on Adam's part. One small ignorantly made decision isnt enough to damn someone to a fallen state.

I could get into explaining things, but I think I'm too lazy at the moment. Anyhow, the most accurate translation of the current bible I've found is the NRSV. But nothing's perfect. If you want to understand it better, pick up a copy, or 5 different copies, decide which you like yourself, and do some studying.

Plus, you'll never be happy with someone else's enterperatation, so if you dub it worth your time - form your own http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



-Uncle Rusty

Well, I don't think that our discussions here are quite so serious as to warrant using different editions. If lostcause wants to switch to NRSV or stick to KJV, that's cool.

Besides, most Christians would use one of the common Bibles to base their beliefs on and what not.

Lost,

i've seen in a few posts some german letters, could you tell me how to post the Hebrew text?? (and Greek, for when we get to it)

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

This would be compounded further if they did actually die a spiritual death.

yes, there was a spiritual death, but the physical was also true. After the 'Fall', God placed an angel to guard the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

In the day that you eat, you shall surely die, means that now Adam and Eve had a lifespan. They started to die at that time.

quote:Originally posted by Rusticus:

First I would advise: remember, when you are reading the bible, you're reading separate texts written by many authors dealing with upwards of 6 different gods, compiled by the Naracean cuonsel, a pagan organization, in the 2nd century.

That was cmpletely out ofleft field and you give no supporting argument

Next I woul advise to remember how different Hebrew & English are, and remember the King James Version was translated by scribes who didnt understand hebrew too well. They did the best they could, but the difference between text and meaning was something not many people had a good grip on for a thousand and a half years later. Take this for example,

Original text:

"That chick is so totally hot."

Translation by scribes who dont understand very well:

"That chicken, being of a very young age, is exeedingly high in temperature, in the completeness of it's being."

Make sense?

Show me where they didnt know what they were doing. And comparing a slang that had not been invented to a language that was thousands of years old at the time is very unfair.

Now, 'also' could have meant "indeed" in this context. Or, this being either Yahweh, or Jehova (I've been studying gospels for the last three years, a tad rusty over here) all the hatred is understandable. Both Yahweh, and Jehova were supremely vengeful gods. Them being 'flesh also' would not surprise me.

Yahweh was the name of utmost respect the Jews gave God. Whereas God calls Himself Jehovah. One in the same. You still provide us no supporting arguments to back your wild assertions

Happy Studying,



-Uncle Rusty

quote:Originally posted by Rusticus:

To quote my good friend William Law:

The Fall was a gradual process, consummate only after numerous completely coherent betrayals on Adam's part. One small ignorantly made decision isnt enough to damn someone to a fallen state.

And on whos authority does he make his claim?

I could get into explaining things, but I think I'm too lazy at the moment. Anyhow, the most accurate translation of the current bible I've found is the NRSV. But nothing's perfect. If you want to understand it better, pick up a copy, or 5 different copies, decide which you like yourself, and do some studying.

Sure if you like verses taken out of context, verses being completely omitted, and watered down meanings of words. The KJV cannot bebeat. Any word can be looked up in an archaic dictionary and the word most accurately described. The time when it was written was when the English language was most developed. Before slang and apathy infected the speakers and definitions were lumped together. That leads me to my next point, the KJV is mostaccurate in all its verses.

Whereas the authors of "revisions" will omit/change the text because they dont know what it means and laziness on their part because they didnt even try to find ut its meaning.

Did you know that the writers of the NIV werent even Christian? Whats that to say about anyone who wants to mess with the Word of God, and even to go as to COPYRIGHT it, as if it was their own work.

Plus, you'll never be happy with someone else's enterperatation, so if you dub it worth your time - form your own http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[i] I dont recommend this, because that takes out the job of the Holy Spirit. Many times people in my church say they read a verse many times and then suddenly it means and expresses something new. The same canntbe said for a personal revision.

-Uncle Rusty



[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

In the day that you eat, you shall surely die, means that now Adam and Eve had a lifespan. They started to die at that time.

Heh heh, that one sounds like you trying to twist the meaning of words to help yourself. At the end of the day, they would either be physically alive or physically dead. I think we can all agree that they were still physically alive.

What I think is stupid is how christians take passages from the Bible, and do their own interpretations to say that, "the Bible says this, the Bible says that". That is what they did with abortion, but abortion did not even exist when the Bible was written, and it is not mentioned anywhere in it either. In fact, it was not even an issue until sometime in the later 20th century. I am just pointing out that they twist the words to support their views.

I realize many people do this on a daily basis with conversations, etc. But come on! Some of the things they pull out of their ass are just ridiculous. And then they say one sentence has 10+ meanings as well. Basically implying that anywhere in the Bible, almost every subject of issue is covered in a form or another - you just have to find something that sounds like what you are talking about.

[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 03-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

Heh heh, that one sounds like you trying to twist the meaning of words to help yourself. At the end of the day, they would either be physically alive or physically dead. I think we can all agree that they were still physically alive.



no, not twisting. if they would have died that day, there would have been no need to post a guard at the "gate" of the garden, to prevent eating from the tree of life.

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

What I think is stupid is how christians take passages from the Bible, and do their own interpretations to say that, "the Bible says this, the Bible says that". That is what they did with abortion, but abortion did not even exist when the Bible was written, and it is not mentioned anywhere in it either. In fact, it was not even an issue until sometime in the later 20th century. I am just pointing out that they twist the words to support their views.

what part of "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to abortion. It is the termination of life. Life that can only be human. If a child is carried to term, it will only be human, not fish or reptile but human. The fetus is human, and abortion is ending the life of a human.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

no, not twisting. if they would have died that day, there would have been no need to post a guard at the "gate" of the garden, to prevent eating from the tree of life.

There would be even more of a need. I imagine that eating from the tree of life would've prevent them from dying.

Seems like there was only a spiritual death.

You are twisting the meaning of the physical death. When we talk about someone dying, we talk about them dying physically - having all their biological functions stop. We don't mean that they are starting to die or whatever. This obviously did not happen that day so they did not die(physically, at least) that very day after eating from the tree of knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

What I think is stupid is how christians take passages from the Bible, and do their own interpretations to say that, "the Bible says this, the Bible says that". That is what they did with abortion, but abortion did not even exist when the Bible was written, and it is not mentioned anywhere in it either. In fact, it was not even an issue until sometime in the later 20th century. I am just pointing out that they twist the words to support their views.

I realize many people do this on a daily basis with conversations, etc. But come on! Some of the things they pull out of their ass are just ridiculous. And then they say one sentence has 10+ meanings as well. Basically implying that anywhere in the Bible, almost every subject of issue is covered in a form or another - you just have to find something that sounds like what you are talking about.



Thats where application comesin. Neither church nor state appear in the Constitutionyet the separtation thereof isheld higher than God himself. Likewise abortion isnt in there, but laws about not killing innocent lives damn sure is.

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

There would be even more of a need. I imagine that eating from the tree of life would've prevent them from dying.

Seems like there was only a spiritual death.

You are twisting the meaning of the physical death. When we talk about someone dying, we talk about them dying physically - having all their biological functions stop. We don't mean that they are starting to die or whatever. This obviously did not happen that day so they did not die(physically, at least) that very day after eating from the tree of knowledge.



Hes saying they lost immortality. Look at how "day of" is used elsewhere in the Bible. You cant just say "today you die' and they didnt, Bible wrong, DURRRR"

You have to figure how the word is connotatively used. Die can also have other philosophical implications (Also, ever heard of "Your dead to me"?).

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

When we talk about someone dying, we talk about them dying physically - having all their biological functions stop. We don't mean that they are starting to die or whatever.

by your understanding, when someone says, "second-hand smoke kills" i should be leaving a trail of dead bodies everytime i light up.

Adam and Eve lost their immortality.

ArgonPlasma2000:

Hes saying they lost immortality. Look at how "day of" is used elsewhere in the Bible.

Well, I'm not too familiar with how "day of" is used elsewhere in the Bible. Perhaps you could provide me with an example or two. I'd say that losing immortality doesn't equal to physically dying anyway.



You cant just say "today you die' and they didnt, Bible wrong, DURRRR"

Please, I didn't say aww the Bible is wrong durrr. I even talked about the spiritual death angle first. My problem is that xtreem5150ahm still wants to persue the physical death angle which I say is a twist on the meaning of physical death.

Right now, it seems that God told them that they would die a physical death on the very day that they eat of the tree from a reading of the verse. This then did not happen on that very day.



You have to figure how the word is connotatively used. Die can also have other philosophical implications (Also, ever heard of "Your dead to me"?).

Yes, I agree. I'm in fact arguing that the word death in this case is not talking about the normal physical death that we all know. My money is on a spiritual death for a plausible explanation so that there is no contradiction between what God claimed and what happened(or not happened, for that matter) that day.

xtreem5150ahm said "yes, there was a spiritual death, but the physical was also true. After the 'Fall', God placed an angel to guard the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

In the day that you eat, you shall surely die, means that now Adam and Eve had a lifespan. They started to die at that time."

He wants the physical part to be true too which I see as too much of a stretch of what we define physical death to be. If all their biological functions didn't cease that day then they did not die a physical death. To say that they did would be a twist on the meaning of physical death, which is what I'm arguing for.

xtreem5150ahm:

by your understanding, when someone says, "second-hand smoke kills" i should be leaving a trail of dead bodies everytime i light up.

No. They don't say that you will die on the very day that you consume second-hand smoke.



Adam and Eve lost their immortality.

Fine, but that is not a physical death.



[This message has been edited by R_I (edited 03-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:



Assuming that 1/3 of the angels in heaven fell with Lucifer, they would have all had to have free will as well. Even if they were under Lucifer's authority at the time, there wouldn't be any need to send them to hell. God would just remove Lucifer's control over them and send him to hell, while keeping the rest in heaven. So unless God was incapable of removing Satan's control over them, the only other possibility is that they freely chose to rebel against God. Also...

"He can't do anything without asking gods permission."

That would imply that he has free will but limited power. Wouldn't you say?

Though the actual number of the angels that supposedly left heaven for Satan is debatable, you are more or less right; and right in fact, definitely. I am no spokesperson for god, I only study religion. I can't defend him against you. God apparently contradicts himself and that's all I can say for it.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

It doesnt matter anyway, if God tells you not to do something that should be reason enough.

The serpent did not dispell any lie from God. God said they would die. They did. The tree wasnt poisonous, it broke Adam/Eves bond to God and he could no longer have anything to do with him so far as being physically close.

Satan created a doubt in Eves mind. He made her question what God had said. He gave her a half truth and used it to leverage his lie.

Now, Satan said they wont die. God says they will. Nowhere else does God proclaim sin, however Satan does this constantly.

Now who are we to believe is the liar in this situation?

For Adam, he willingly sinned. Eve gave him fruit and he ate. Eve was tricked, so God went a little easier on her (after all, women are pretty easy to lie to, no offense).

But compare the child to Adam. He had to have been extremely intelligent. Second only to God. Photographic memory, you name it (he had to remember all the animals names, and there were more than there are today).

However the child has a very limited time here onearth. He is curious to know, but lacks intelligence to learn without experience. Tell him fire hot and astupid person will test that, however a smart person will feel the surrounding air and note that temperature increases with proximity to the fire.

See my point? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Your argument cannot be proven right. It's a valid argument and if that's what you believe then great, but it can be just as well argued that it wasn't meant metaphorically and that god lied.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by R_I:



Oh, and to understand your perspective a little better, are you religious? If so, which one do you follow?

[/qoute]

I am your typical "spiritual but not religious" scholar. Agnostics calls me Athiest and Athiests call me Agnostic. I'm somewhere, I guess, in between.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by R_I:



Hmm, your definition of free will which is based on permission is strange. I'm sure Satan could make a choice and attempt it or something even though he is not allowed to do such and such.



It's admittedly been several years since I've read any other version of the bible and this is my first time reading the Saint James Version, but in what I've learned (without reading it, so this is just a general concensus) is that the Lord trusts Satan with the power of free will for a moment, to get a worthy ansewr on whether or not he should destroy his creation of man. Satan says yes, because he doesn't want to bow down to another species, basically. God disagrees and challenges him. God gives Satan his own domain and untouchable freewill - meaning he can make his own decisions but he can't act on them without gods permission. His angels/demons only obey him. Anyways, that's what I've been tauhgt. I could be wrong. I guess we'll all find out, huh?



[QUOTE]Originally posted by R_I:



Please provide the chapter and verse that states that the serpent told Adam and Eve the truth.



Okay... Good, I'm glad. I want you to challange me.

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said. Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of that garden:

3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midgst of the garden, God fath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,m then your eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



That's where I see he lies. It can obviously be argued with :5, but I subcribe the the first.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by R_I:



I'm playing the devil's advocate here so bear with me as I use the Christian responses. The serpent doesn't tell heif they did not get saved by a sacrifice. I imagine they used animals back in the day before Jr the truth because that very day they had a spiritual death and would be condemned to Hell Jesus came along.

Also, I wonder about God cursing snakes too. Why curse snakes when maybe Satan only assumed their form. Or perhaps it was a baddy that was different from Satan and that it was really a talking snake that God made. Still, cursing all snakes makes no sense to me. Are you saying that there was indeed a talking snake that God made and that it wasn't actually Satan in disguise?

It's kinda hard to have this sort of discussion because I find the explanations ridiculous anyway but it passes the time so hey.

EDIT:

Oh yeah, how do you reconcile God supposedly lying with:

Titus 1:2

[2]In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;



There rest is your champaigne. Go for it.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Lost,

i've seen in a few posts some german letters, could you tell me how to post the Hebrew text?? (and Greek, for when we get to it)



Can you point them out, it's really difficult responding to all these replies.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

What I think is stupid is how christians take passages from the Bible, and do their own interpretations to say that, "the Bible says this, the Bible says that". That is what they did with abortion, but abortion did not even exist when the Bible was written, and it is not mentioned anywhere in it either. In fact, it was not even an issue until sometime in the later 20th century. I am just pointing out that they twist the words to support their views.

I realize many people do this on a daily basis with conversations, etc. But come on! Some of the things they pull out of their ass are just ridiculous. And then they say one sentence has 10+ meanings as well. Basically implying that anywhere in the Bible, almost every subject of issue is covered in a form or another - you just have to find something that sounds like what you are talking about.



Everyone take the bible into their own intepretations. The Caunterbury Tales were written less than 500 years ago and they're english. Still, they're almost completely indicipherable. We're talking about a document written in several, dead or otherwise obscure languages, changes and translately over and over again into different belief forms, and then set a leader who only gives his own translation...[/b]

Cheers,

Lost

Immortality is protection (if you will) of life. You have the inability to die. So if one does NOT have immortality, they do NOT have the nability to die.

Simple logic

LostCause:

It's admittedly been several years since I've read any other version of the bible and this is my first time reading the Saint James Version, but in what I've learned (without reading it, so this is just a general concensus) is that the Lord trusts Satan with the power of free will for a moment, to get a worthy ansewr on whether or not he should destroy his creation of man. Satan says yes, because he doesn't want to bow down to another species, basically. God disagrees and challenges him. God gives Satan his own domain and untouchable freewill - meaning he can make his own decisions but he can't act on them without gods permission. His angels/demons only obey him. Anyways, that's what I've been tauhgt. I could be wrong. I guess we'll all find out, huh?

Well, then you are saying that Satan has free will. Permission is irrelevant. We are talking about the freedom of will, not freedom of action.



That's where I see he lies. It can obviously be argued with :5, but I subcribe the the first.

I'm starting to get a littled confused here. Who lies? God or Satan? Which is the first that you suscribe too?



There rest is your champaigne. Go for it.

Say what? I don't understand.



And lastly, did you change my original post when you quoted it?

Namely, "I'm playing the devil's advocate here so bear with me as I use the Christian responses. The serpent doesn't tell heif they did not get saved by a sacrifice. I imagine they used animals back in the day before Jr the truth because that very day they had a spiritual death and would be condemned to Hell Jesus came along."

It starts to get incoherent there.

ArgonPlasma2000:

Immortality is protection (if you will) of life. You have the inability to die. So if one does NOT have immortality, they do NOT have the nability to die.

Simple logic

Which post are you responding to with yours?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

what part of "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to abortion. It is the termination of life. Life that can only be human. If a child is carried to term, it will only be human, not fish or reptile but human. The fetus is human, and abortion is ending the life of a human.

Actually, in Judaism you're not considered alive until "the breath of life enters the body". So, since the original bible was written by Jews you can assume that where it says "Thou Shall Not Kill" did not apply to unborn fetus's.

Cheers,

Lost

[QUOTE]Originally posted by R_I:

Well, then you are saying that Satan has free will. Permission is irrelevant. We are talking about the freedom of will, not freedom of action.

[/qoute]

Yes. That's what I meant. Thanks.



I'm starting to get a littled confused here. Who lies? God or Satan? Which is the first that you suscribe too?



God lies to Adam and Eve when he tells them they'll die if they eat from the tree. Though, what he meant by "die" and how Adam and Eve interpretted death at that point is debateable.

"There rest is your champaigne. Go for it."

Say what? I don't understand.



- Not even I know what I was trying to say... Sorry, temporarily lapse of sanity?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



Easy there, turbo. I dont come here to debate but to help. If you arent ok with something I say, than all's good and well, we'll just be mature adults and agree to disagree.

I wont engage in the dialogue if it passes ******d of peace-seeing. My thread was not to thrash, nor was it to offend. Dont take things on a personal basis, you'll get into to many fights that way, and essentially - end up no-where. Keep yourself open to all interperatations, dont settle on one.

Look at it from a third-person point of view. Extract yourself, and your interperatations out of the picture while you entertain as many interperatations as come to mind.

I think a good book to pick up would be Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It challenges one's conventional thinking.

Best Wishes,



-Uncle Rusty

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

What I think is stupid is how christians take passages from the Bible, and do their own interpretations to say that, "the Bible says this, the Bible says that". That is what they did with abortion, but abortion did not even exist when the Bible was written, and it is not mentioned anywhere in it either. In fact, it was not even an issue until sometime in the later 20th century. I am just pointing out that they twist the words to support their views.

I realize many people do this on a daily basis with conversations, etc. But come on! Some of the things they pull out of their ass are just ridiculous. And then they say one sentence has 10+ meanings as well. Basically implying that anywhere in the Bible, almost every subject of issue is covered in a form or another - you just have to find something that sounds like what you are talking about.



Thank you, Aeon.



-Uncle Rusty

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

what part of "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to abortion. It is the termination of life. Life that can only be human. If a child is carried to term, it will only be human, not fish or reptile but human. The fetus is human, and abortion is ending the life of a human.

Note: "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is a more accuratte translation. The word meant - if memory serves - to kill in cold blood.

Abortion is an atrocity in my opinion, but it's peoples own free will, their 'God given right'. Us impeeding that is the most anti-christian thing we could ever do.



-Uncle Rusty

Argon, you just need to chill. For goodness sakes, we are trying to have a legitimate and open conversation here, and you come in with your "I'm right, and that's how it is." egotist logic, belittle someone when they disagree with you, *decide* what the bible means, and completely bust a nut over your own personal beliefs.

Goodness, I feel like I've got a mormon missionary at my house again, no matter how many times I kindly say that I respect his beliefs, but I hold my own he goes hay-wire.

I explain that I will openly share my own beliefs, an consider anothers in a non-judgemental state, you'd have thought I was dancing on the cross or something.

Just chill for a minute, act like a mature individual, that's all I'm asking.

If you can't stand hearing someone else's views, than I sincerely believe it would be better for your blood-pressure to avoid this forum.

Best Wishes,



-Rusty

quote:Originally posted by Rusticus:

Note: "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is a more accuratte translation. The word meant - if memory serves - to kill in cold blood.

Abortion is an atrocity in my opinion, but it's peoples own free will, their 'God given right'. Us impeeding that is the most anti-christian thing we could ever do.



-Uncle Rusty

"TO KILL IN COLD BLOOD" What part does not apply to an innocent child?

God doesnt give us anythingin accord to a "right of free will" Free will is a consequence of a choice. But what if the child had a choice to live? What if he wanted to live? If i were to kill my child, i could just as easilly say i "aborted" him. I chose to kill him because maybe he "cramped my style"? Would that be my right to chose? Would i have justification then?

Argon, you just need to chill. For goodness sakes, we are trying to have a legitimate and open conversation here, and you come in with your "I'm right, and that's how it is." egotist logic, belittle someone when they disagree with you, *decide* what the bible means, and completely bust a nut over your own personal beliefs.

Sorry. But how is it that im being egotistic and saying that thats how it is and tell you to shove it? I say that the bible is subjective, but you have to know what the connotation of the verse actually MEANS.

Goodness, I feel like I've got a mormon missionary at my house again, no matter how many times I kindly say that I respect his beliefs, but I hold my own he goes hay-wire.

Baptist. But if your that easilly offended, you need to grow a pair. But then how can you justify yourself not egotistic when you dont consider my points? Yours are illogical. Mine follows with a book that has happened to be around for some thousands of years and some millions of people also believe in. Most of your beliefs obviously come from a humanistic veiwpoint. That of which i dont care, but when you try to fit and argue against the bible, you just cant do that.

You say that it is wrong to deny someone their right to free choice, yet you dont stand against abortion. You destroy the pedistal on which you stand.

I explain that I will openly share my own beliefs, an consider anothers in a non-judgemental state, you'd have thought I was dancing on the cross or something.

I dont think that you mean to, but you are. You apply heresy to situations you have no business to. Lost asked what those verses mean, and lots of non-Christians replied with thier opinions . I just cant stand for that. If you are nt christian, and dont know the bible, you dont belong in this thread, sufficeing to say your not addressing the issue. According to the book Lost quotes, it is wrong to say heresy. And its also wrong to tell someone lies (heresy). Sorry, i didnt write it, curse God, not me. God says what you say is heresy.

Just chill for a minute, act like a mature individual, that's all I'm asking.

If you can't stand hearing someone else's views, than I sincerely believe it would be better for your blood-pressure to avoid this forum.

lol, good advice. Sorry that i come off as arrogant and close-minded. But when it comes down to it, you cant define the bible according to what you believe. You have to compare it to what the author says, and what the text says.

Im actually pretty open to new ideas, but when they fly in the face of the last thing left in the world thats good, you have to be up in arms to defend it.

The thing is that i have listened for years to a pastor who has personally translated many books of the bible from the Textus Receptus. He is well learned in many schools of thought and is very knowledgable in the bible. And when you can logically link what he says to what is actually there, and know why it is, you learn what things mean. And i know that you have to speak out against heresy when you can.

ArgonPlasma2000:

I dont think that you mean to, but you are. You apply heresy to situations you have no business to. Lost asked what those verses mean, and lots of non-Christians replied with thier opinions . I just cant stand for that. If you are nt christian, and dont know the bible, you dont belong in this thread, sufficeing to say your not addressing the issue. According to the book Lost quotes, it is wrong to say heresy. And its also wrong to tell someone lies (heresy). Sorry, i didnt write it, curse God, not me. God says what you say is heresy.

Well, I'd say that even though I'm an atheist I should belong to this thread. There's nothing wrong with opposing view points when they are backed up by decent arguments. If you think that someone is wrong, just demonstrate so and have a discussion about it. Someone here might be a Bible genius but we're not going to know till we talk about the Bible with them.

To be fair, Rusticus has just been making baseless assertions so far in some of his posts and that's not cool with me too.

[This message has been edited by R_I (edited 04-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Argon, you just need to chill. For goodness sakes, we are trying to have a legitimate and open conversation here, and you come in with your "I'm right, and that's how it is." egotist logic, belittle someone when they disagree with you, *decide* what the bible means, and completely bust a nut over your own personal beliefs.

Sorry. But how is it that im being egotistic and saying that thats how it is and tell you to shove it? I say that the bible is subjective, but you have to know what the connotation of the verse actually MEANS.

Goodness, I feel like I've got a mormon missionary at my house again, no matter how many times I kindly say that I respect his beliefs, but I hold my own he goes hay-wire.

Baptist. But if your that easilly offended, you need to grow a pair. But then how can you justify yourself not egotistic when you dont consider my points? Yours are illogical. Mine follows with a book that has happened to be around for some thousands of years and some millions of people also believe in. Most of your beliefs obviously come from a humanistic veiwpoint. That of which i dont care, but when you try to fit and argue against the bible, you just cant do that.

You say that it is wrong to deny someone their right to free choice, yet you dont stand against abortion. You destroy the pedistal on which you stand.

I explain that I will openly share my own beliefs, an consider anothers in a non-judgemental state, you'd have thought I was dancing on the cross or something.

I dont think that you mean to, but you are. You apply heresy to situations you have no business to. Lost asked what those verses mean, and lots of non-Christians replied with thier opinions . I just cant stand for that. If you are nt christian, and dont know the bible, you dont belong in this thread, sufficeing to say your not addressing the issue. According to the book Lost quotes, it is wrong to say heresy. And its also wrong to tell someone lies (heresy). Sorry, i didnt write it, curse God, not me. God says what you say is heresy.

Just chill for a minute, act like a mature individual, that's all I'm asking.

If you can't stand hearing someone else's views, than I sincerely believe it would be better for your blood-pressure to avoid this forum.

lol, good advice. Sorry that i come off as arrogant and close-minded. But when it comes down to it, you cant define the bible according to what you believe. You have to compare it to what the author says, and what the text says.

Im actually pretty open to new ideas, but when they fly in the face of the last thing left in the world thats good, you have to be up in arms to defend it.

The thing is that i have listened for years to a pastor who has personally translated many books of the bible from the Textus Receptus. He is well learned in many schools of thought and is very knowledgable in the bible. And when you can logically link what he says to what is actually there, and know why it is, you learn what things mean. And i know that you have to speak out against heresy when you can.

This is exactly it. As you said what the bible means is up for 'debate' but in the same paragraph, you indoirectly stated that *you* understand what it means, which makes me wrong by default. I make the statements formed passively "According to the studying I've done, this is what I've found" "This is how I understand it." If there is a fault, so be it, the fault is most certainly on my part.

But being with a pastor learned in his own perceptions of the bible - be they what they may - is regardless to learning what it actually means. We can study and study, and yet all we can do - for the most part - is speculate.

I am a Christian myself, though I'm certainly not perfect by any means, I try to keep myself open to any interjection or viewpoint. What *is* heresy? Heresy is something that Christ himself was very adept at. Now before you bust a nut, note the definition of 'heresy'.

"An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member. "

"A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science. "

Heresy is - according to this interperatation - *not* blasphemy. On the contrary, 'heresy' is only relative to an established religious group. Christ - by this definition - was quite the heretic. Hence why the Jews, Pharisees, Scribes, Zealots, and just about everyone else, was not too happy about what he was saying. It was heresy to them, blasphemy? Not from a christian point of view, but heresy? Certainly.

If it ever came down to protecting the 'word of God', my friend, I would gladly stand next to you and defend it with all I could muster. But as for what the 'word of God' means, who -really- knows? People can spend their entire lives studying every passage of the bible, researching every verse, and end up with entirely contrary views to another. Who's right? Who can really - really - do anything more than speculate as to the context and meaning of most of the bible as we know it today?

Take abortion, reread the part where I said "In my opinion it's an atrocity." In my opinion it is. In my opinion the termination of anything that had the potential of life - is an absolute atrocity. But not everyone shares my opinion, and I'm not about to go forcing it on other people.

Well, and truth be told, on that 'word of God' remark, according to many passages of the bible, the 'word of God' is incomprehencible to the human mind. We cant really put it on paper, or speak it one to another. It's ineffable. Onmipotent. Immortal. All we have are mear reflections trying as best they can to allude to that ineffable word.

On a side-note, I agree with R_I. He belongs to this discussion as much as any christian does. First, it isnt a Christian scripture, it happens to be in the Christian Bible, but quite truthfully, it's actually (debatably) a jewish scripture. Or any other pre-Christian, and even post-Christian religion that decides to lay claim on it.

Though he may not have spent years sutdying it, he's just as entitled to an opinion as we are. Everyone is. (Note my use of the word opinion very -very- carefully.)

Open discussion forum for everyone to share their own opinions, right? I dont debate anymore, so I wont enter a like discourse, but I suppose anyone else is free to attempt and disprove what they will.

Remember in any case - Christ's words take priority over anything else. To a Christian, that is. And because numerous things dont add up in the bible, reffer to what someone said, that Luke/John/Matthew/Mark/etc. said, that Christ said. At best we have a third-hand account, but it - or at least what is alludes to - takes priority. (To a Christian)

Anyhow, cheers,



-Uncle Rusty

Lost, SIN brought death into man's existence.

Prior to the Original Sin, man was intended to live forever, or so we are led to believe from the context of the Creation account in Genesis.

God was not saying that Adam and Eve would die right away, but that their flesh would begin to decay in the way that we understand it today.

Eventually, their lives expired. That was the point.

Digital_Savior:

God was not saying that Adam and Eve would die right away, but that their flesh would begin to decay in the way that we understand it today.

Eventually, their lives expired. That was the point.



Aww come on, not you too? Why do you have to try and stretch the meaning of the passage? If someone told you that you would die for sure on a particular day, would you take it to mean that your flesh would only start to decay? Or perhaps you would think that all your biological functions would end that day if the claim was correct.

I see no good reason to agree with your meaning of what the Bible passage says. It's talking about dying(physically or spiritually) on that very day.

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

Digital_Savior:

God was not saying that Adam and Eve would die right away, but that their flesh would begin to decay in the way that we understand it today.

Eventually, their lives expired. That was the point.



Aww come on, not you too? Why do you have to try and stretch the meaning of the passage? If someone told you that you would die for sure on a particular day, would you take it to mean that your flesh would only start to decay? Or perhaps you would think that all your biological functions would end that day if the claim was correct.

I see no good reason to agree with your meaning of what the Bible passage says. It's talking about dying(physically or spiritually) on that very day.



H4191

**1502;**1493;**1468;**1514;

mu**770;th

mooth

A primitive root; to die (literally or figuratively); causatively to kill: - X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy (-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro [-mancer], X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in [no] wise.

I do not know hebrew, but this is from Strongs Dictionary.... maybe this will help the clear things up.

Fair enough. You gunning for "worthy of death" of something? The physical meanings there obviously did not happen by their respective English meanings.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Actually, in Judaism you're not considered alive until "the breath of life enters the body". So, since the original bible was written by Jews you can assume that where it says "Thou Shall Not Kill" did not apply to unborn fetus's.

Cheers,

Lost



Sweet, I'm converting.