But you are taking as sequential what is not necessarily sequential. In the second passage you quote, it does not specify when the animals were created. It merely states that God created them. Then (of course) after Adam was created, God brought the animals to him for him to name them.
We encounter the same kind of thing in Genesis 1:16 (last part) where it says "He made the stars also." That does not mean that God created the stars on the fourth day of Creation Week. It does not even mean that God created the stars during Creation Week. It merely states, parenthetically, that God also created the stars, lest anyone suppose that God only created the earth.
Don't read into the text some specification that is not there.
This is actually a good illustration of a valid principle of Bible interpretation. When we encounter one text that is less clear to us, we look to other texts that treat the same subject, and allow them to make clear the first text. In other words, we do not say the texts are contradictory, we allow them to harmonize in a natural, logical way. They do explain each other. There is no DIRECT contradiction. The only seeming contradictions arise from what we may improperly be assuming. To put in other terms, we need to be fair with the text.
Another example might be the Bible accounts that some think are contradictory about how Judas killed himself. One gospel narrative says that he went and hung himself. (Matt. 27:5) But the account written by Luke (who was a careful historian and a physician) in Acts 1:19 says that "...falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." (NKJV) But if we assume both narratives are divinely inspired, we should not stop at what seems to be a surface contradiction. We should see if any reasonable harmonization is implied. Notice that Luke says he fell. Well, what did he fall from? It is logical to conclude that he did hang himself, from a branch over-hanging a cliff. But when he stepped off the cliff, at some point the rope or the branch broke, and he fell. Thus both Matthew and Luke were correct. Now, if one writer had said Judas hung himself, and another writer said he attacked a Roman soldier, who stabbed him with a sword, then we would have had a real contradiction.
Most attempts by critics of the Bible to indict it for contradictions really just reveal the mindset of the critic, a determination to claim something is contradictory, when in fact it does not necessarily have to be. A person with a more fair-minded attitude would see the obvious, logical harmonization, adding two and two together.
By the way, since you also mentioned it, the process of deciding which manuscripts belong in the Bible was not arbitrary and subjective. They went by whether other books quote from a given book, how certain the authorship is, and of course whether the teachings are in harmony with the rest of the Bible. Even the Roman Catholic scholars, who chose to accept the Apocrypha, almost didn't. They had questions about it too. Protestants took those objections more seriously. (Like the fact that in one place one book in the Apocrypha seems to teach reincarnation. And the fact that several of the books are no where mentioned by other established Bible writers.)
If someone wishes to make claims involving morality, implying that family ties must come above the law and justice, then I have every right to show how the Bible informs such moral issues. Most people have heard 1 Corinthians 13--it is read in most weddings of any denomination I have attended, from Roman Catholic to Lutheran to Seventh-day Adventist. In that chapter, the Apostle Paul states what genuine love is, and is not. If someone wishes to make moral pronouncements but forbid anyone from citing what this society considers the basis of morality and the laws that we follow (such as how many spouses you can marry), then they are engaged in closed-minded discrimination, refusing even to allow anyone with a Biblical point of view to speak.
If this practice is upheld, then it is the arbitrary discriminators who are the losers, as well as anyone else who might benefit from and appreciate a genuinely open debate.
The New Catholics?
Christ only died for humankind. Unless they orginally came from earth in some kind of ancient immigration to Mars amd established small colonies underground in caverns beneath the floor of the five-mile deep Mariner Valley (where the air would be a lot more dense), any Martians would be sinless, and so would not be in need of a savior.
Those "2 creation accounts" might just be 2 separate accounts. Not one.
Not only this, but, "the beginning" may not be about the literal beginning of God's relating to creation itself. May be the beginning of God making creation functional for us.
"The Lost World of Genesis 1", great book about it.
The creation accounts in Genesis may be a form of dialectic between a Jewish view of Yahweh/ancient cosmology and Egyptian cosmology with a post exilic throw in relating to Babylonian cosmology dialectic. There's a great book on this, "In the beginning, we misunderstood".
Ron, Mars is a huge desertic area. So many oportunities for religions there...
Bones of men of a similar size and composition have been found all over the world dating back more than 25,000 years. These ancient people may very well be our predecessors (I figure it is a good guess).
On the walls of their caves and etched in the geography these multitudes all over the world all tell similar tales which seem to match up with geologic & fossil records.
I'm not going to discount the vast possibilities based on the overstated assertions of today's atheist elites that profess to believe in nothing.
(05-12-2014, 08:40 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: The New Catholics?
Why would martians want something as primitive as a religion?
The higher you go on the science and technology scale, the less you need religion. Even if you still believe in God.
If you can perform space-time travels through worm holes dug across the Universe's vortex, IMHO, for God sake, you don't need to knee and pray an idol because you don't understand the natural elements which are falling upon you.
Christ's role was to "seek&save that which was lost". If the offer of the kosmos in the wilderness was legitimate, then that includes all of creation.
Paul went so far in discussing the eschaton as saying what he did in Colossians 1:15-20. That left out nothing ever created. Christ and then humans are the prolepsis, the entire thing goes back to God in restored form and that includes all.
Off topic, here's a Chinese financial study that says Christianity has helped their economy. I ain't paying for it. I don't believe it either, just posting it here for discussion:
If you believe in monotheism, God is forcibly the same for all minkind, including poeple from other religions, everywhere and for every epoch of human history.
It's clear that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one of the New Testament. If not the Old Testament wouldn't belong to the christian holly scriptures.
Yet, according to Ron it needs demonstrating. And I think his demonstration (see below) is flawed.
God is always the same, it's the understanding of God which is variable. Poeple believe a multitude of things about this same and unique God.
For the Jews of the Old Testament believed that God allows the Choosen Poeple to make war to conquer The Promise Land.
When the Jews massacred the Amalakites, it was a nothing but a genocide. A whole population had to leave their land and make place to the new occupier. many poeple died in the process. That the winners have written at that time that the Amalakite were so bad that it was God's decision that they be defeated for the benefit of the Poeple of Israel is exactely the same as the anti-jewish propaganda during the 3rd Reich.
At that time Jews believed that God allowed war under certain circumstances
[sic Ron] and on of the circumstances is when it was a decision of God. And it was a decision of God everytime it was a decsion of the Jews to invade and they succeeded. When they didn't succeed it was not a decision of God, then the defeat was a punition of God for trying to do what God didn't want. But that last case is less amphisasized in the Old Testament. Most of the time, Judaic military conquests were forcibly what God ordered, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
The Christ changed that view. He said God can't order any violence in any circumstance. For the Christ, war was not within the juridiction of God. It was a matter of men, of governements, of warriors, not of God because God was Love. And you can't wish war when you are Love.
So there was an evolution in how the conception of God between Judaic and Christian times.
Islam sort of restored the ancient Judaic view with the concept of Armed Jihad, making Allah a God of War. Apparently some poeple thought that this concept was missing after Christ's coming on Earth.
If you are a believer God is the same for jews, christians and muslims and you think that what others believe about God is wrong. Not that God is different in other religions. Because doing so would be admiting that there is more than one God and denying your own monotheism. But some so called monotheist are thinking in that way nonetheless.
If you are a pragmatic, you believe that God is what poeple think he is. That it's the poeple who create God by their ideas, their speach, their art and their imagination.
When you see how widely the representation of God varies throughout History, you can't think but the second theory...
Ron Wrote:You can always find comfort for your ideology by taking isolated Bible texts out of context. Sound scholarship requires that you take everything in context, including the social/cultural context. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God Himself directing that military action be taken in certian circumstances. There is a recognized duty of government to defend the safety of its people, which includes being proactive enough to eliminate tyrants which if unchecked could become a threat to your own nation. The God who ordered Israel to kill all the Amalekites, because they are inherently destroyers, is the same God who preached the Sermon on the Mount.
If that is a new thought to you, let me go over a couple of texts I have mentioned in the past. "No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18) If you will read Exodus 24:10, 11, you will see why I put "the Father" in brackets. Moses and the elders of Israel were said explicitly to have seen God on Mt. Sinai. The only way you can reconcile the two texts, is to conclude that John was speaking of God the Father. In fact, that is pretty much what he said when he added, "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
It is the Son of God (along with the Holy Spirit) Who has interacted with humanity all through history, from the Garden of Eden onward.
So if you are among those people who think the God of the Old Testament was fierce and wrathful and dangerous, and the God of the New Testament was all loving and tolerant and meek, then you have a problem, because the Biblical fact is that they were One and the Same. The God who was born in a manger in Bethlehem, who preached the Sermon on the Mount, is the same God who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and who gave the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. So if your philosophy cannot reconcile the two, then you are making overly superficial assumptions somewhere, about what is really righteousness, and what is really evil, in this world--and what our moral duty is in regard to them.
The Pope Wrote:Baptism for all even Martians
Ron Wrote:Christ only died for humankind. ...and so (Martians) would not be in need of a savior.
Logicaly what Ron said would be true. (Ron you don't want to be Pope?)
There couldn't be a single ancestry starting from Adam and Eva for both humans and Martians. (unless as Ron said, they came from Earth, but technicaly that woudn't make them aliens to human kind).
That means that the whole story of Adam's whife eating the apple wouldn't be valid for little green men living on a planet where apples don't even grow.
But wouldn't they be in need for a savior? Nothing is less sure. Let's look at all the science fiction movies (to make the conversation more accessible, I will exclude books): Some don't need a savior because they are the creation of the Devil (Mars Attack, Alien, Star Gate, Starship Troopers) and need to be destroyed no matter what, others don't need a
savior either because they already got one, have their own auto-correcting system or never had any sinful thought ever and are already perfect beings (E.T., Avatar), but others, many others would definetly need a savior like The Christ because they behave like ugly barbarians but can be brought to reason when you have a chance to talk to them, eliminate the worse ones or when a superior mystical force interferes (Star War, Battlefield Earth, Dune).
Now the question is: Is our Savior (The Christ) be enough to save human look-alike aliens or would they need, according to the scriptures, another one to take effect?
And Fred, that gives weight to the argument of "Inspired by G-d" versus "Directed by G-d". And if the later, why would G-d need someone to write it all down, when the Creator could simply have it all written in stone, for everyone to see and read? That is why I am a follower of the former, and not the later.
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz
I share the "inspired view" myself. I think God allowed the human hand to have it's say, such as they had no scientific grasp of things and God did not give that to them, so you read about iron domes overhead or their emotions are in their "splanchna" which = intestines, etc.
I don't agree with all of Fred's take here though.
In each case of what Fred calls OT genocide( and that really is what happened) there are present these hybrid creatures called "nephilim/giants". Even the animals were to be killed off due to potential contamination. A mix of human and "beney elohim"(Gen 6) which I Enoch called "the watchers", i.e. satanic angelic type creatures.
The genocide was not ordered when there are no nephilim in the area and that was most the time, it is actually rare.
Regardless of one's OT hermeneutic view(historicity or metaphor), the nephilim are why the genocide is ordered. To allow them to stand is to place a death sentence on the Jews in effect and to make Genesis 3:15 null and void.
Incidentally, nephilim are also in every pagan religion we can discover from the ANE to over here in the Americas. Personally I think that is evidence they existed. Probably ~ 6' tall when humanity averaged <5' tall. I'm not sure the neanderthal's may not have been them.
Sounds goofy I know, but, most were killed off by the flood and science says they died very rapidly.
No, the neanderthals were one foot shorter, not one foot taller. Couldn't be nephilins. But some sapiens sapiens were very tall. Like 6' as you said while M-E poeple are slightly shorter.
Anyway it's no excuse for genocide.
This story took a mythological turn. The earlier you go, the more the Jews looked like pagans who were converted to monotheism gradualy.
Demons, angels, fallen angels, cherubins etc all this look like a big greek mythology with the difference that everything was initialy caused or ceated by God. Yaveh himself behaves like a person with weaknesses and emotions and various relationships with other beings, as if he was Zeus or something.
No way, Fred. I do not want to be pope. Being exalted like that is the most unhealthy thing I could imagine.
Besides, the Church has One Head, which is Christ. We must not have anyone or anything in between. Not even the church itself.
I think the Nephilim were merely humans who grew very big because they lived to be 700 or more years old (before the Flood changed the environment drastically). They were not human-angel hybrids, an idea that so fascinates some people. Angels are not even physical (in their natural forms--they are spriits, according to Heb. 1:7), they do not have DNA, they are not sexual beings (see Matthew 22:30).
I believe the "sons of God" were the people who maintained the faith of Adam. And "the sons of men" were those who departed from the faith. I have a theory about why such unions might occasionally produce individuals exhibiting "hybrid vigor." But it is pretty sketchy.
In the old days before the advent of advanced science, that is how gigantism was explained.
This could manifest itself through either a pituitary adenoma, or recessive genetic trait signaling the over production of human growth hormone. And it generally begins in childhood, and continues into adulthood.
There have been cases in some families where one child suffered gigantism, while another had multiple digets on the hands and feet. Consequently there are more than one manifestations of this anomaly.
One thing the bible never mentions is the toll gigantism takes with the body of the giants. The human skeleton cannot handle the abnormal increase in mass and not break down early on. Proximal and distal ends of long bones, including the sockets of the pelvic area deteriorate and the individual is almost always left in an invalid status, should the person reach middle age.
One other thing. When you see photos of people suffering from gigantism, they are always clothed, and you cannot see the joints of their long bones. That is because they are almost always inflamed and swollen, due to the increase in weight they are forced to carry under our normal gravity. Just picture yourself having to live on a planet that has a 2G gravitational pull, and having the gracile frame humans are born with. We would have to either quickly mutate to a more robust frame, or learn not to move around.
The only way giants could live a normal life would be for them to exist on a planet with one half, to one third, the present gravity. If you examine giant animals from the past, or even elephants today, you will notice that they have huge skeletal joints, that are highly buttressed for just that sort of thing.
the reason why hunter-gatherers in Europe and other places, were six feet is because they enjoyed a more varied and healthy diet. In areas where agriculture took over, and people gathered in large numbers, the diet deteriorated in quality, and they tended to shrink in size. Its a simple as that.
And yes, you are right. None of this is an excuse for genocide.
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz
Genocide was going to occur on one side or the other whether it's metaphor or historicity if you follow the text. You couldn't allow the hybrids to remain, that would be akin to modern day warfare like the Americans do it, we seem to lose strategically every time since 1945.
The Jews who wrote that stuff didn't intend for future readers to see it as genocidal like we use the term( morally comparable to the holocaust), they assumed it would be seen as heroic, "either Jews or nephilim survive and if it's nephilim, there is no answer for Genesis 3:15 and all creation is doomed".
This was seen theologically by the Jews as a contamination of humanity and the end of God's Plan to redeem His creation via "the seed of the woman".
Andre the Giant (Andre Rene Roussimoff) famous as a professional wrestler (he defeated Hulk Hogan for the World Wrestling Federation Heavyweight Title on February 5, 1988), and for his movie roll in The Princess Bride
, died of a heart attack at the age of 47. He was six eleven and weighed 500 pounds. Link: http://www.biography.com/people/andre-th...6#synopsis
Andre the Giant:
(Size: 8.31 KB / Downloads: 14)
If there were ancient giants, I bet they were ~6' tall. Humanity was so much smaller back then, that would be huge relatively speaking.
(04-12-2015, 05:29 PM)Palladin Wrote: If there were ancient giants, I bet they were ~6' tall. Humanity was so much smaller back then, that would be huge relatively speaking.
Probably not. Remember, the argicultural revolution allowed for people to gather in mass, and this led to civilizations. However, the quality of agricultural products were not as good as the diet of hunters and gatherers, who ate a varied diet. The average hunter-gatherer was pretty much the height of what we are today. So being 6ft was common to them.
My guess is that these giants really were suffering from gigantism, because its been in the gene pool for as long as we know.
This is Robert Wadlow
, officially the tallest human on record. Because of his weight and height, he was forced to wear leg braces and he died at the age of 22.
Here, go check out all these giants
. And note that they all have one thing in common. They all have to use canes and leg braces. I don't know what they do for their hips, but they need assistance as well.
Isn't it funny that the bible never mentions the down side to all this? I wonder why?
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz
That's because the Jews, unlike all their neighbors, saw the giants as satanic evil, they wouldn't have been in favor of anything but demonstrating how YHWH saw them. The neighbors revered them. If I am not mistaken, Gilgamesh was a giant.
Gilgamesh goes from a revered king in Sumeria to a worshipped god in the Levant for example. The Gentiles thought they were awesome.
BTW, Michael S. Heiser is an OT theology professor I know of and he thinks Goliath was ~6'6". Some folks think a cubit is longer than he does, but, he's a scholar of Aramaic, ancient Hebrew and Ugarit, so his opinion carries a lot of weight with me. Goliath is the last giant in the text chronologically speaking.