Biblical Contradictions: Question #2

That might be true if you think the authors were capable of having that intent, and then revising it into the story we have today.

You will have trouble reconciling that scenario with the lack of such allegorical style in the adjacent passages.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol. When you treat symbols literally, you set up a dividing line between blind faith and scientific impossibility. If you treat these like a symbol, both sides can be right at the same time. Knowledge of good and evil is not a physical thing, rather it is more like software than hardware.

Adam and Eve had a modern civilized mind plus human DNA. They were different that the prehuman mind and DNA that had evolved. But they evolved from this beginning. This advancement is implicit of the brain power needed to make use of knowledge of good and evil. The implementation would require an advanced mind to learn and differentiate laws, so civilization had the rules and the regulations needed to advance. This gad to advance, even though this was unnatural, relative to a million years of tribal based traditions.

As an analogy say we had a bunch of three years olds and wish to turn them into a tight team. We can think of rules they all need to follow. However, since their brains are young and impulsive, good luck. We will need to wait a little long until their brains and will power are mature enough. A couple of teachers might be able to pull it off but if they are not there the team will break down.

Adam was a prehuman who evolves a different mind set. Adam is formed from the dust of the earth. The symbol of the earth has to do with instincts. Forming Adam from the dust of the earth, means his new revolutionary mind formed from the diverse data associated with instincts. The first human ego or secondary center of consciousness forms. The pre humans had no ego, but were natural via the inner self. Adam in the image of god is a software image which give shim the ability to create, that which was needed for the logistics of civilization.

Jesus talks in parables instead of giving bottom-line data and conclusions to memorize. For example, the kingdom of god is like the mustard seed. In the modern debate of science and religion, one side would take this literally with faith, and the other side would say this is not physically possible. But the third side would take it as a symbol of something that starts small and gets huge.

Eve is formed from Adams rib. In terms of symbolism, the ribs protect the heart. The heart is symbolically associated with feeling and emotions. Eve forms from something that protects the male heart or feelings.

That which protects the male heart is maternal instinct. In nature, the female mother animal has the most comprehensive adaptation and survival instincts, since she has to work for more than herself. She needs to protect and feed the children. This is the logical place for the female ego to appear and is consistent with genesis.

Adam appears as the first human in terms of this secondary center of consciousness called the ego/conscious mind. But since he is now so different from all the pre humans peers, he is alone and lonely. It would be like being the only one speaking a language in a group. You are with others (pre humans), but alone.

Adam is put asleep, or his new ego is repressed. Isolation is too painful for him. Maternal instinct is blind to superficial differences. "A face so hideous only a mother could love". Eve has a symbolic connection to the maternal instinct which will protect Adam's heart (feelings) so what is evolutionary is not discouraged. Eve becomes a living soul or she develops the female ego. Together they have human DNA but now both have the new mind capable of learning even laws of good and evil. The tree of life was too advanced in terms of the mind at that time.

Eve leads Adam because although her ego formed to protect his heart, Adam loses a rib in the process, making his heart vulnerable to her. He goes along wit her, "yes dear!". The loss of paradise is connected to the dissociation of the new ego from the inner self, so the human ego can evolve.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This complicates the story far beyond itself. Of course, the authors had no idea. They were not present. The first people (or very early people) did not speak Hebrew. Hebrew derived from Phoenician. And older cultures extend deeper into the past.

It's an explanation for things, commonly referred to as a creation myth. Other cultures had creation myths. If we go looking for the degree of similarity between this one and the others, we will find in the Gilgamesh story, the fashioning of a man out of clay by their creator god.

This reasoning makes far more sense than a story that is carefully designed to deceive us every time a contradiction comes up.

Your assumption that some text supports some other text appears to be made under a belief that the Jewish Bible has only one source. Scholars disagree, and there is a lot of evidence to support the scholarly opinion, as you might imagine.

There is quite a lot of evidence that you may be unwilling to accept.

Even practicing Christian Bible scholars will explain the errors in your thinking. So it has nothing to do with anybody else. It's just your own personal opinion, devoid of certain facts. If I tell you this, I'm not thinking about justifying myself, because this has nothing to do with me. The facts and evidence speak for themselves. Those facts teach that there were multiple sources for these writings, that the creation myth is two stories woven together from two different sources, and that this ambiguity is widespread throughout the books of the Bible.

Because it was not actually written. It was actually tradition, handed down from older creation myths. Because the stories were woven together over time by various authors unknown to us. And their myth is not commonly understood, by a billion people who read it, to include your definition of some other undisclosed people. As for the bizarre, what is more bizarre than making a man out of clay? Why does God need clay? Does God have hands? Why clay? Oh because these people made pottery, so clay is something tangible to suggest to them the intangible, the act of making a fully grown man.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thing is that it's not implied as Gen 3:20 states Eve is the mother of all living. It didn't say all living creatures, which would imply animals and such, but all living, meaning humans.

Spark our minds? Are you kidding? That is ludicrious. Proverbs 30:6 and 1 Cor 4:6 both state not to go beyond what is written. That Bible does not say, "Interpret these teachings as you wish, adding to, and taking from." No. Think about it. If you were passing a note to someone down the hall, would you encourage whoever you pass it to to add things to it and interpret it as you wish, and then pass it on? No, a God would make sure of everything he wanted in his word.

I have no idea why people are still saying atheism is a religion. I haven't heard anything more futile in an attack against atheism, and there are A LOT of futile attacks on atheism. I beg you to consider this article: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

Not sure how anyone could say atheism is a religion. I think I am allowed to say that that is utterly stupid. Yes, atheism was devised to degrade God. A God of which there is not evidence for! You make it out like even if there was any solid evidence for God we would still be atheist. Any atheist here will tell you that we would become theist in a heartbeat if a book was discovered or sent from above which agrees with science, has no contradictions, and holds supernatural insight beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a book would certainly not be evidence for an immortal God, as that is a logical fallacy (See God Fallacies), but it would definitely be evidence of a supernatural being, and I think that's all we need to know in order to do whatever they want us to do.

We are atheists simply because we see no evidence to being the opposite.

There is no such thing as a hyperspace theory, that is science fiction; according to my research. What you refer to is GR (General Relativity) and gravitational time distortion.

If the Bible really hints on GR, then that would mean that heaven has a specific point in the universe. I found this:

I don't think this holds up with Biblical doctrine. Rather, I do believe in the ancient astronaut theory, so this could just be furthur evidence of that. Perhaps if you could track where one day would equal 1,000 of our years, that would be the location of our ancient visitors. That's if what I quoted above makes any sense scientifically.

Nevertheless, I think this answers it pretty much: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100208031152AA8nj8p

Since the ancient astonaught theory would need an old testament scripture to be relavant I think. Plus, why would EXACTLY 1000 years be a location of something?

You say atheisim is tantamount to holding a dean at gunpoint and expecting nobody to call the cops. Well there a problems with this analogy.

#1 is that there would be clear physical proof of a Dean. There is no clear proof of a God.

#2 is that we are not holding anything at gunpoint, we are not threatening anyone. We just choose not to believe based on evidence, or lack thereof.

#3 is that someone did call the cops, but no cops have came, yet. LOL I still don't see any evidence of a God.

So a more proper analogy is that the university SAYS there is a Dean at the school, but there is no evidence of such. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. No one has seen the dean, even those in high authority. Some have claimed to have seen the dean, but cant prove it. So some students have come to the conclusion that there is no dean. No one is holding anyone at gunpoint, and an invisible person at that.

 

And Aqueous Id comes and blows this debate out of the water! BOOM! LOL. Most intelligent post yet. I was just beating around the bush and you cut right to the chase, lol.

 

Nice explanation, but I feel sorry for you, or whoever spent so much time thinking that up when, as Aqueous Id explained, A & E is just a creation myth. Why would Moses or whoever wrote Genesis feel the need to write their creation myth all symbollically all in terms that would likely be way beyond their intelligence? Why not just come out and say what they mean? Instead of saying rib, why not say heart? And I don't think your rib protects only your heart.

 

Ok, so far we've got about 5-6 (maybe more) different claims from Christians regarding my original question. And each seems entirely certain that their explination is the truth.

The funny thing is that not a single claim is backed by evidence.

Six whole pages of hypotheses and debate without an advancement to theory.

 

Exactly. Whereas Aqueous Id's side of things is.

Your contradiction is weak, though. Goodluck if you post that on a Christian board. Of course, Aqueous Id is still right.

 

Strong enough to spark six pages of ranting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's because you posted on a science forum full of wackos and nutjobs. If you want to see if your contradictions hold up, you go to a Biblical forum. If you want to see if evidence holds upz you go to a science forum.

 

There are some pretty intelligent people here able to hold a sound discussion. I've also posted this elsewhere and have yet to recieve a clear explination that shows any proof AND supports the biblical claims.

 

Ive already told you, the Bible makes it clear that Adam was perfect and sinned, causing imperfection (not in the Genesis account. Possibly in the New Testament.). Genesis shows this because the first people lived hundreds of years without medicine and everything that we have now and we cant get past 130 years. Since they were perfect, every subsequent generation became less perfect. Incest would not bear genetic offspring until God forbade it in Moses' time. When he saw genetic defects were about to happen

 

Also, I re-read your OP and saying A & E only had 2 sons is certainly not Biblical: Gen 5: 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

 

Aqueous Id,

What contradictions?
That's the point of this thread.
There are no contradictions.

My ''assumption'' is based on the actual text, and how they relate to other
scriptoral sources.

Such as?

Would defence of their religion and religious beliefs figure in their explanations? Or would they go head to head with the actual words of the Bible?

The fact is that the Bible states that mankind was created, and then it goes on to say that Adam was created. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. Contradict me if you can.

Irelevant. We're not discussion whether the Bible is true or not.

You keep bringing up this point. So what if there are other creation myths.
What does that have to do with this thread?

It's not my definition. It is written by ''whoever''.
God made mankind, male and female. No need of interpretation there.

Irelevant.

jan

 

But the fact still remains it would be incest regardless of how many offspring they had. And the bible specifically condemns incest.

 

What would you accept as a clear explanation?

jan.

 

An irrefutable one supported by evidence.

 

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.""--Acts 17

 

I already explained this. Incest is allowed only when it doesn't produce defective offspring. Therefore the only time allowed was before the law was inacted. Back then reproduction was essential. What's the sense of sex without reproduction? Therefore sex between relatives was condemned. Plus, there was no such thing as condems, and birth control. I'm not saying any church accepts incest, but that is why that law was enacted, whether it be from God or not.

I believe consensual incest that bares no children should be legal. Minor laws will still apply. Under atheisim there is no reason not to agree, the taboo of incest was first created by religion and then villianized more so by pedos. Japan has no problems where incest is legal. Many families there have sex with each other to cope with the much higher than normal stress rates. Just casual sex, just like playing video games.

 

Do the actual words in the Bible suffice?

jan.