Thoughts on the Bible: Genesis

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Thoughts on the Bible: Genesis

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Genesis Ch. 2 v. 24
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I never paid that much attention to this verse. I thought it was just the author's commentary on the preceeding story (with the rib being used to make Eve). It just sort of ties the story together and provides a nice little mythological* explanation for romantic attraction.

Apparently, (according to my conservative study bible) this verse actually packs a much bigger punch than that. In this one compact little verse is contained the following "truths:"

- This is describing MARRIAGE, not just any old relationship.
- God intended monogamy to be a part of marriage forever.
- God intended heterosexuality to be the only relationship he would ever allow.
- Any variation from the one-man-one-woman model for marriage is an offense punishable by hellfire- and you'd deserve it for breaking God's "law" which is stated in this verse.

....hmmmmmmmmmm.........

I don't see where they're getting all this information. This verse doesn't prove any of the above "truths" at all-- and even if it did describe an "ideal" relationship, it's not God speaking when these words are said; it's the narrator, the voice of the author.

My other study bibles don't even address these potential dogmas that are extracted from this verse. Probably because they're not really there to begin with.

*When I say "myth" in reference to something Biblical, I mean that this particular story explains a fact of life in a supernatural way. It's NOT to say I think the Bible is false/worthless/a big fat lie.

-- Edited by Chris at 16:37, 2006-05-28

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

I think that Moses, who was writing all of this down as directed by God, was trying to say here that when an adult son finds his wife, he is to move out of the home, make a new home for his wife, and start a new family by being "one flesh" with her, thereby making her pregnant with a child of their own. The other stuff in the bible's notes is where I have a problem. The author of these notes, which appear in a lot of other bibles, is trying to use this verse to prove that things like homosexual unions and divorce are a sin, because they are "not of God's original design for mankind". My answer to that is: neither was cd players, gas-guzzling SUVs, and chicken-fried steak...does this therefore mean that these things are also sinful.

I am very tired of seeing conservative Christians try to use the word of the Lord as some kind of "weapon" in a culture war against those of us who are "on the other side from them". I am a gay conservative fundamentalist Christian. I have no conflicts between my homosexual love and my beliefs...

Until my homosexuality tries to make itself as a substitute for God!

And maybe that is why guys like Phelps are trying to destroy us...they think that our existence somehow "proves" that the bible is not all true. Or that God has, sometime after the bible was finished, "changed the rules" and now is playing by a new "ballgame" with fallen humanity. The plain and simple truth is that God made a perfect universe, man messed it up, chaos and sin was brought into the world and now Jesus' sacrifice just plain wasn't enough. Trust me...God is NOT "playing a brand new game" with the souls of men. God is just making each and every person DIFFERENT. Black is different from white, male is different from female...and GAY is different from STRAIGHT!

There is no "conflict" here. Just another "neo-con" from the Religious Right trying to use the bible as a tool for his own "taking back the country from us 'deviants'," and to "reclaim America for Christ"!

...Like as if Jesus LOST the USA the same way you and I can lose our keys.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

I think that Moses, who was writing all of this down as directed by God, was trying to say here that when an adult son finds his wife, he is to move out of the home, make a new home for his wife, and start a new family by being "one flesh" with her

Hmm. I agree with most of what you said, although I don't believe Moses wrote Genesis. There just isn't enough convincing evidence, for me.

Not that it matters to me whether Moses wrote it or not. But some people vehemently insist he did, because it's much easier to maintain a strict "literal" perspective if we believe it was written word-for-word directly from the mouth of God.

Another problem with the literal/Moses view of Genesis is that it's too easy to make every single verse into a system of belief, stretching the verses' meaning beyond what's actually there. That's what happens when homophobic conservative Christians read this verse. They're desperately looking for a place in the Bible where God himself defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Since there is no such verse, this one fits their bill of "close enough."

If this verse is telling us what all men SHOULD be doing (which it's not), then not only is homosexuality sinful (for men- not really for women), but it's also sinful to be UNMARRIED. Just because the verse fails to mention homosexuality or being unmarried, doesn't mean it condemns those ways of life.

I don't actually think the verse is telling us what we SHOULD do at all. It just says that when a man gets married and leaves his parents, then he clings to his wife and they become one flesh. It's saying "that's the way it is," not "that's the way it must always be."

Krypto · Mighty Morphin Prayer Warrior

Chris wrote:

That's what happens when homophobic conservative Christians read this verse. They're desperately looking for a place in the Bible where God himself defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Since there is no such verse, this one fits their bill of "close enough."

So true...

Krypto · Mighty Morphin Prayer Warrior

Chris wrote:

I agree with most of what you said, although I don't believe Moses wrote Genesis. There just isn't enough convincing evidence, for me. Not that it matters to me whether Moses wrote it or not.

I copied and pasted these excerpts from this website: http://www.nwcreation.net/genesisauthor.html

Just some thoughts about Genesis, Moses and the author of Genesis.

Assuming that Moses was responsible for the Book of Genesis as it has come down to us, there still remains the question as to the method by which he received and transmitted it. There are three possibilities: (a) he received it all by direct revelation from God, either in the form of audible words dictated by God and transcribed by him, or else by visions given him of the great events of the past, which he then put down in his own words, as guided subconsciously by the Holy Spirit; (b) he received it all by oral traditions, passed down over the centuries from father to son, which he then collected and wrote down, again as guided by the Holy Spirit; (c) ho took actual written records of the past, collected them, and brought them together into a final form, again as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Evidently any of these methods would be consistent with both the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration and that of Mosaic authorship. However, neither of the first two methods has a parallel anywhere in the canon of Scripture. "Visions and revelations of the Lord" normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).

Thus it is probable that the Book of Genesis was written originally by actual eyewitnesses of the events reported therein. Probably the original narratives were recorded on tablets of stone or clay, in common with the practice of early times, and then handed down from father to son, finally coming into the possession of Moses. Moses perhaps selected the appropriate sections for compilation, inserted his own editorial additions and comments, and provided smooth transitions from one document to the next, with the final result being the Book of Genesis as we have received it.

Although this theory of the authorship of Genesis cannot be rigidly proved, it does seem to fit all available facts better than any other theory. It is consistent with the doctrine of Biblical inspiration and authority, as well as with the accurate historicity of its records. Furthermore, this approach provides vivid insight into the accounts, and a more vibrant awareness of their freshness and relevance, than any other.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

So basically, it doesn't matter who wrote Genesis.

Krypto · Mighty Morphin Prayer Warrior

Chris wrote:

So basically, it doesn't matter who wrote Genesis.

Umm....I don't know. I don't care who wrote it. I like reading it, that's about it.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Krypto wrote:

Chris wrote:
So basically, it doesn't matter who wrote Genesis.

Umm....I don't know. I don't care who wrote it. I like reading it, that's about it.

No, that wasn't meant to be a negative conclusion. I just agree that whoever wrote it, it remains a wonderful and faithful story of the very beginnings of the world and of Israel as God's chosen people.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Sorry. I haven't had time to write about this kind of thing for a while.. Anyway, moving on:

Chapter 3

These are just some random thoughts on topics related to Genesis Chapter 3.

Many people assume without questioning that the serpent is "Satan." The Bible doesn't actually say this; it just says "serpent." When the punishments are being dealt out to the guilty parties, the serpent's punishment doesn't befit "Satan," but is a punishment that rather befits an animal, go figure...

In the punishment of the serpent (v. 15), the phrases "strike his heel... crush your head" inspire a lot of people to say it's intended as a reference to Christ. But this is only one reading; it's unlikely these phrases were originally intended to inspire the ancient hebrew people to hope for a Messiah.

In the story, death is not an additional curse because of Adam and Eve's actions. Death was always a part of the created order- Adam and Eve were only able to avoid death previously because of the Tree of Life. Now that they are cut off from the tree, their natural death is inevitable. But they weren't previously immortal by nature.

There are parallels between Eden and later descriptions of God's holy Temple. It's where God himself lives, it's protected by Cherubim, the exit faces east, there is restricted access (not just anybody can go in), and there are trees (and rivers) of life that proceed from it.

Note that animals are only provided for skins and for food after there is enmity between man and beast. Previously animals were meant solely as companions. The fruit of the garden was man's food. Only after the "fall" are animals given for people to eat. Is killing animals for food, then, a sign of the "fallen" state of the world? Perhaps a good argument for vegetarianism.

Thoughts?

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

Actually, it wasn't until after Noah's FLOOD that God gave the edict that animals were allowed to be eaten. This wasn't because of the flood, but that "the fear of man" would be upon the wild animals that came with him and his family within the ark, so that they wouldn't try and eat THEM when they made it back to dry land. Also, I sometimes wonder if the reason why animals fear humans so much is because the incident with God destroying the world with a flood that they now KNOW that it is within OUR POWER to cause them and the whole earth to be DESTROYED...

Sorry...I didn't mean to get all "Al Gore" upon y'all!

Also, we know that the "serpent" was really the from Rev. 12:9 & 20:2. If you've ever compared the two books, Revelation reads like Genesis IN REVERSE! In the first two chapters of Genesis, man is placed in a garden-like paradise by God; in the last two of Revelation, man restored to have PERFECT fellowship with God, in a BETTER paradise, the New Jerusalem. So if it was the in the book of Revelation that is called "serpent", then it has to be the same serpent in the Garden of Eden.

If you remember from Dante's "Inferno", Satan is seen devouring three souls. Dante was inspired to describe him like this from the passage in Genesis 3, where God curses the "serpent" by making him to crawl upon his belly, "eating the dust of the earth". Now we know that snakes don't REALLY eat dust, but if you read later on, you will see God curse mankind in Adam by saying, "from DUST you came from...and it shall be DUST that you will return." The "dust" is whatever is left of a lost immortal soul, sent to hell to be "devoured" by Satan...for all eternity.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

Actually, it wasn't until after Noah's FLOOD that God gave the edict that animals were allowed to be eaten.

True. But God provided animal skins for clothes upon their expulsion from Eden. This is the first instance when animals were killed for humans' benefit. Before this time, the only "clothes" were those little leaf-tunics Adam and Eve tried to make.

Also, we know that the "serpent" was really the from Rev. 12:9 & 20:2. (...) So if it was the in the book of Revelation that is called "serpent", then it has to be the same serpent in the Garden of Eden.

We don't actually "know" any such thing. I can understand why you would say that, given the "serpent" parallel. But then, are all serpents in the Bible supposed to be seen as the "devil?" Of course not. Plus, Revelation is a vision of heaven, in which all sorts of mysterious creatures take part.

This also doesn't address the fact that the serpent's punishment in Eden is not appropriate for "Satan."

If you remember from Dante's "Inferno", Satan is seen devouring three souls. Dante was inspired to describe him like this from the passage in Genesis 3, where God curses the "serpent" by making him to crawl upon his belly, "eating the dust of the earth". Now we know that snakes don't REALLY eat dust, but if you read later on, you will see God curse mankind in Adam by saying, "from DUST you came from...and it shall be DUST that you will return." The "dust" is whatever is left of a lost immortal soul, sent to hell to be "devoured" by Satan...for all eternity.

This is an interesting parallel. I wonder if the same word for dust is used to describe what the snake eats, as the word for dust used to describe "from dust to dust." I mean in the original language.

Though it's true snakes don't eat dust, they do slither through the dust and their faces get dusty-- as though they DID eat dust.

But how do you know that Dante was inspired to show Satan devouring people because of Genesis?? I've never heard that. Anyway, by the time Satan was chewing on those people, they were just souls. Their bodies had turned to dust long ago wherever they were buried. So in Dante the devil wasn't really eating dust at all. But it is a really intriguing parallel.

...just one more question: aside from Dante, how else does "eating dust" apply to the Devil?

-- Edited by Chris at 18:22, 2006-06-11

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

I can plainly see the connection where Dante uses his picturing of Satan eating souls and the "serpent" condemned to eating dust. This is a metaphor describing of how Satan destroys the lost souls that he has beguilled as "the serpent of the ages". Satan was once the highest of the angels in heaven...now he is forever condemned to the lowest level in hell, having to "eat" the souls that he has fooled into following him out of grace.

As for Satan eating dust in the Bible: Jesus made Satan "bite the dust" when He used Satan's own plans to kill the Messiah to instead kill man's sins and the guilt of them!

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

...Satan was once the highest of the angels in heaven...now he is forever condemned to the lowest level in hell, having to "eat" the souls that he has fooled into following him out of grace.

Um... where does the Bible say any of this?

As for Satan eating dust in the Bible: Jesus made Satan "bite the dust"

Booooooo!

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

Chris wrote:

Um... where does the Bible say any of this?

Holy Bible, Rushed-Closeted-Homo-Trying-To-Finish-Posting- Before-Missing-Best-Part-Of-Last-Blue-Collar-Movie Version.

Hey! If Benny Hinn can "wax poetic" with holy scriptures, then so can I!

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

Holy Bible, Rushed-Closeted-Homo-Trying-To-Finish-Posting- Before-Missing-Best-Part-Of-Last-Blue-Collar-Movie Version.

Somehow, I could tell that was the version you were using...

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Chapter 4

Why is Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? The Bible doesn't specifically state. For a long time I was taught that Cain had somehow brought items which were defective somehow, or that they weren't truly the "first fruits" of his harvest. I suppose that makes sense. Another interpretation is that Abel's sacrifice was an offering involving the life-blood of an animal, which became so important in later rituals. It seems a little unfair, though, to impose the law of Moses on these early people.

Remember back in 2:24 when there was the verse about a man leaving his parents for his wife? Well some extreme conservatives not only take that verse as a ban on gay marriage, but also on polygamy. Such people therefore claim that Lamech in this chapter with his two wives-- as well as EVERY old testament polygamist- is willfully rebelling against God's "institution of marriage" in 2:24. This stance is a little silly, since nothing about rebellion is said in conjunction with polygamy. The more and more famous, faithful Biblical heroes that come along, and are polygamists- none of them are punished or even commented-upon by the text as breaking an "institution of marriage." Kinda makes the whole argument that there WAS an "institution of marriage" fall apart. Maybe 2:24 doesn't ban gay marriage after all...

Chapter 5

The "Harper Study Bible" (published by Zondervan-- not to be confused with the esteemed Harper-Collins Study Bible) includes the following commentary on verse 1:

"list of the descendants of Adam, i.e., a list ... of those descendants of Adam who were looking to the coming of Jesus Christ."

WHAT? This is a little ridiculous. I understand we as Christians view the Old Testament differently since Jesus came, but how would any of these people have known to be expecting the coming of Christ? There were no such things as "jews" or "gentiles" to be reconciled to each other, there was no concept of needing a "savior," and as of yet, no prophet had spoken a single word from God to indicate that a Messiah was on the way.

This just seems to me to be another ridiculous attempt to tie the beautiful and complex Bible into one neat and tidy little package with a unified message. The Bible defies that kind of reduction! Just accept it for the wonder it is, and don't try to water it down, or you're throwing out innumerable babies with all the bathwater you choose to ignore.

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

I think that the reason why God accepted Abel's offering and rejected Cain's was because of the condition of their hearts. If you have a heart that beats after God's, then you will present the best of your posessions up to God. Abel offered the best of his sheep. Not out of some "duty", but because he LOVED the Lord and wanted to give him something from his heart.

Not so with Cain: he didn't have a heart that was in the right place. He just grabbed a bunch of his "fruits" from his garden, thinking "Oh well...I'll just give him some fruits and veggies, and that should be good enough! I got to get this religious stuff over with before 'Blue Collar TV' comes on! I am SO in love with that Larry the Cable Guy!" (WHOOPS! Spoke a LITTLE too much on THAT one! ) So he just grabbed a few fruits and veggies and offered them up to God in a HALF-hearted attempt to worship God from an EMPTY heart!

Whatever is first in our hearts...it will show itsef FIRST in your daily life!

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Good interpretation, Jeffrey! It often helps to fill out the story with thoughts that might have been going through the people's heads as the events described occurred.

Chapter 6

The "sons of God" and the "Nephilim" are intriguing-- without going to non-Biblical sources, we have no clue what these things refer to. Are they angels living among the humans? Many old myths suggest that's what they were, but the Bible doesn't prove or disprove that they were angels. Are the "sons of God" additional people that were spontaneously created by God without the need of Human procreation? Or is this sons/nephilim thing just a dual way of describing existing humans-- where the "sons" are those humans who are faithful to God (Seth's descendants) and they intermarried with "human women" (Cain's descendants)?

Then of course there's the whole Lilith mythology, but I'm not getting into that because it's not Biblical (plus I think it's a load of crap

)

Verse 6- an interesting and rare depiction of God feeling surprised/disappointed by his creation- is special to me. God is not often "sorry"- it almost suggests God feels he has made a mistake. The only other place in the Bible I can remember where God was "sorry" was much later than this- when Saul proved to be a bad king, and God was "sorry" he had made Saul king. Anyway I know it's just one little word, but it makes me feel a greater connection to God.

Though there are many ancient stories of a flood, this one is slightly different. Most other ancient flood stories say the gods were irritated by all the noise of an overpopulated world, and flooded the world to kill everything and get some peace and quiet. This ancient Hebrew account is unique because the flood is a punishment for extreme wickedness, not just a whim to keep things quiet.

Chapter 7

According to the study Bibles I use, originally there seem to have been TWO accounts of the flood story, that in our current version are intertwined into one story. There is evidence of two different stories to support this: we are told the flood is caused by rain, but at another point the flood is caused by openings in the "great dome" that covers the earth; in one account Noah takes only two of each kind of animal into the ark, in the other there are several extra animals taken along so that there can be sacrifices made once the flood is over. This account with the extra animals for sacrifices may have been written later, once sacrifices became a standard requirement of the Law.

Apparently, there is geological evidence of a great worldwide disaster in prehistoric times, but not of a worldwide flood.

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

I LOVE this part of Genesis! There is so much "Hollywood disaster-movie" stuff in here!

The "sons of men" probably were demons that have posessed the bodies of some of the men to have sex and reproduce these "giants" that are probably the inspiration behind the ancient Greek myths of the "Titans" that were destroyed by Zeus. Since demons are/were angels, and angels can't reproduce (see Matt.19), they need to posess a body to do their "dirty work", which in this case was to enter the human race and breed these creatures to enslave and destroy us. When these giants (they were probably just very tall people, like basketball players) took over the human race, they lead people into horrific sins of violence until God became so grieved that He had to destroy the world so that SOME, Noah and his family, could be saved. The whole purpose that Satan and his minions is in enticing people to worship him is so that when they become so sinful, God will judge and condemn them to death JUST to stop the evil influence from spreading throughout the world. Just look at how WONDERFUL a jod Satan has done throughout the ages by using RELIGION to kill BILLIONS in holy wars, crusades, jihads, inquisitions, mass racial genocides of everyone from Jews to Native American Indians, and, may we not forget, tying gay people up to "faggots" and burning them at the stake, in order to "save their souls from the sins of the flesh".

The reason why I believe that the flood story is real is because of from where the floodwaters came from: from rain that began to fall for the very first time, and from "caverns" from below the surface. WHY?

Imagine a comet striking the earth with that thin canopy of water covering it. The incoming ice mass would shatter the canopy's ability to hold it's structure and disintergrate into a massive rain cloud covering the planet. When the comet smashes into the ocean, giant tsunamis, some the height of skyscrapers, ripple throughout the oceans and batter the world's shorelines. It would be like what happened in Indonesia on 12/26/04...but all over the WORLD!

Then, when the remains of the comet, still the size of Manhattan, crashes into the ocean floor, earthquakes that measure "12" on the Richter scale (that is about ONE THOUSAND TIMES more powerful than the quake that happened on 12/26/04) ripple throughout the globe. These quakes create a phenomenom called "liquifaction", where ground water comes shooting up to the surface in great geysers that can shoot up to 100 FEET into the air, as well as turning all of the ground into something like quicksand, causing WHATEVER that is sitting upon the surface to sink quickly BELOW it.

This whole process covers the ENTIRE PLANET!

Now,imagine yourself as a "scoffer" in those days, sitting on the ground outside of the ark, laughing at Noah and his kin, daring them to come out and "preach" some more about God's coming judgment. Suddenly, a massive explosion is heard and knocks you 50 feet away. Trees are knocked FLAT. The force of it strips you naked as its winds just RIP the clothes from off of your back! Then day turns instantly into night as the water canopy is VAPORIZED in a flash, causing torrents of RAIN to pour down upon you with enough force to make you struggle to BREATHE. You are DROWNING from WATER VAPOR! Then...you see IT!

A massive 300 FT. tsunami that stretches from horizon to horizon...is coming right at YOU! You run as fast as you can to get away; but before you can take a single step, an earthquake knocks you back down. Geysers of water shoots up into the dark skies all around you. You try to scramble to your feet...but the ground beneath has turned into quicksand. And as you go insane from terror, the tsunami hits you with enough force to rip your FLESH from your body, grinding your BONES into pulp.

Whatever is left of man...his homes...his works...his acts of violence...is completely DESTROYED!

Just a note:

According to astronomers, 200 asteroids, the size of which that can cause massive destruction like this, fly through our planet's orbit...EACH AND EVERY SECOND OF THE DAY!

Have pleasant dreams!

-- Edited by TaterHead at 13:56, 2006-06-15

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

The "sons of men" probably were demons that have posessed the bodies of some of the men to have sex

Whoa.... I guess that could be... hmm... Where did you hear this, Jeffrey?

The reason why I believe that the flood story is real is because of from where the floodwaters came from: (...)
Imagine a comet striking the earth with that thin canopy of water covering it. The incoming ice mass would shatter the canopy's ability to hold it's structure and disintergrate into a massive rain cloud covering the planet (...)

Hmm... You certainly can paint a picture. Um one question though-- what canopy of water are you talking about?

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

Some of us creationists believe that a thin water canopy once covered the globe, like the ozone layer does, and with the same effect.

My sources come from various study bibles, commentaries and creationist books like "The Battle for the Beginning" by John MacArthur and the Creation Research Institue. I can't remember what their web address is, but I think that you can Google it to find it. Both are very good resources. Also I LOVED science ever since I was a little boy, and when I once got this book about the hunt for Noah's ark, I have been hooked on finding "scientific" evidence for a global flood that would help prove it. I use the term "scientific" loosely, not because I don't believe in it (which I do), but because of no matter how much, or how convincing, physical evidence that proves that the flood happened...most pro-evolution scientists just brush it off and call it "fantasy", thus proving that NO MATTER how much REAL science that there is in the Bible, some people will just stick their fingers in their ears and walk away.

Again, this is why I have almost completely stopped studying biblical archaeology: no matter what is proven in the Good Book to be true...the media just thumbs their noses at it, and try to call you a "religious crackpot". Some scientists, like Jack Horner (the consultant for the "Jurassic Park" films), have been "poo-pooed on" by the "scientific community" because they have suggested ideas about earth's past that don't go along with "realistic" evolutionary thinking. Horner, if you can remember, was nearly laughed out of the community just because of his suggestion that dinos were warm-blooded and acted like birds. These ideas, once scoffed at by the "intelligencia" of scientists, is almost accepted fact from the evidence now being found.

Makes you wonder if the REAL problem with this debate is nothing more but just plain EGO...

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

something's wrong with this; let me try again.

-- Edited by Chris at 12:29, 2006-06-16

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Hey Tater

Sorry my last post was so skeptical and curt. I didn't have a lot of time to write and I wasn't really trying to be a jackass. I'm really glad you post in this thread, Tater, because even though I use a conservative study Bible (among others) my thoughts tend toward the liberal view most of the time. It's good to have that diversity in our discussions.

TaterHead wrote:

My sources come from various study bibles, commentaries and creationist books like "The Battle for the Beginning" by John MacArthur and the Creation Research Institue. (...) no matter how much, or how convincing, physical evidence that proves that the flood happened...most pro-evolution scientists just brush it off and call it "fantasy", thus proving that NO MATTER how much REAL science that there is in the Bible, some people will just stick their fingers in their ears and walk away.

It does bother me a little when you say things like this. What does questioning flood evidence have to do with evolution? I mean, you say there is physical evidence of the flood, that is then questioned by "pro-evolution scientists."

It bothers me because of the all-or-nothing syndrome I mentioned once: in which, if a liberal Bible scholar suggests one scrap of one story in the Old Testament may not have historically happened EXACTLY as written, the conservative response is "Well why don't we just throw out Jesus and the whole rest of the Bible as well?!?!??!"

What I'm saying is just because a person says there's no physical evidence of the great flood, that doesn't make them a "pro-evolutionist," nor a scientist, for that matter. My source material that stated there is no physical evidence for a worldwide flood is the New Oxford Annotated Bible, written, editted, and approved by some of the greatest Biblical minds in the world. It's not a group of anti-Christian, pro-evolutionist "scientists."

Again, this is why I have almost completely stopped studying biblical archaeology: no matter what is proven in the Good Book to be true...the media just thumbs their noses at it, and try to call you a "religious crackpot". (...) Makes you wonder if the REAL problem with this debate is nothing more but just plain EGO...

Hmm... I see it this way: say the scientific community (which is made up of Christians and non-Christians alike) does not approve of a theory that was developed by radical creationist Christians. Well I figure the scientific community knows a heck of a lot more than I do on the subject, and since there are faithful Christian ways to look at what science DOES show, I see no reason to go out looking for scraps of "proof" to support a more literal Biblical view.

For example, take Genesis Chapter 1. Look at the order in which life is created in this chapter. First come plants. Then there are "swarming things" swishing around in the water. Then come fish, swimming in the water, leaping into the air on occasion as some fish do. Next come birds that can actually take to the air and dwell out of the water. Next comes livestock and other beasts on the land itself. Finally, humans.

...sounds like evolution to me, and many Christian scientists also take an evolutionist view- even beyond what I would take. Combine that with the rest of the scientific community that support evolution, and that convinces a person like me, who doesn't know nearly as much as the scientific community does.

But then here come the "Christian" scientists (to be distinguished from scientists who are Christian) with "proof" that evolution is wrong, or that the flood was real, etc. If it comes out of left field (or right field in this case) and the scientific community doesn't view it as adequate proof, that doesn't make them prideful or snobby or anti-Christian. Many scientists ARE Christian. But the extreme conservative creationists so insist that they're in the right, they take it as anti-Christian discrimination if their "proof" is disregarded.

You're right, Jeffrey. It DOES sound like a pride issue.

-- Edited by Chris at 12:33, 2006-06-16

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

Chris, honey, I'm very sorry if I have offended you. Let me explain what I was getting at...

I was trying to explain (more like VENT) about how it makes me so upset when I see SOME pro-evolution scientists attack not just us creationists, but ANYONE who puts out there a scientific theory about how life on earth got started. It seems like whenever someone comes along with an idea about what happened thousands or millions of years ago, some of the "old fuddy-duddies" of the scientific community scoff at the idea that something (or anything) happened that goes against THEIR idea of what happened.

Take, for instance, the idea of "catastropheism". This is the theory that changes upon the earth happens mostly due to a gigantic disaster that happens to it. Now we know today that dinos were POSSIBLY taken out by a giant asteroid crashing into the planet. But believe it or not, some dino scientists STILL resist this version of what caused their extinction. Why? This is what one scientist said that got me so mad: "Because it sounds too much like what those CREATIONISTS say about Noah and the flood!" That is pure BIGOTRY! Dispelling a theory just because it has the same "wrath of God"-like global disaster in the Bible? Come on! That's just like some "fundie" who gets after a gay Christian like me because he suggested that the God's judgment COULD have come upon the world because of overpopulation, and could have been prevented if God had allowed "Adam & Steve" along with Adam & Eve!

There are people on BOTH sides of this that just want to use either science or religion to do what they REALLY want: to try to get rid of the other's ability to have a say in the public arena. Athiestic evolutionists want us "bible-thumpin' crazies" to have no say in the public school system...and "Christian" creationists just want to use Genesis as a "litmus test" to see if a Christian politician will vote for or against gay marriage.

THAT is what gets me REALLY MAD!

Not liberals like you, Chris! Love ya!

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

SOME pro-evolution scientists attack not just us creationists, but ANYONE who puts out there a scientific theory about how life on earth got started. It seems like whenever someone comes along with an idea about what happened thousands or millions of years ago, some of the "old fuddy-duddies" of the scientific community scoff at the idea that something (or anything) happened that goes against THEIR idea of what happened.

Well, there are always jerks on either side of any argument. I think I understand what you mean.

Moving on...

Genesis Chapter 8

Note that God makes TWO separate promises: one in chapter 8 and one in chapter 9. People usually focus on the promise of chapter 9 (God will never again destroy the earth by a flood) because it paves the way for a later destruction by fire, presumably at the end of the world, as some people envision it.

But here in Chapter 8, God promises never, ever to destroy the Earth-- EVER. Not even by flood. He decides he'll never, ever destroy all life on the planet like he did with the flood, and he makes no loopholes or qualifiers by saying "by flood," which would allow him to destroy it in another way later. He just says never, ever-- period.

Genesis Chapter 9

As many people have suspected, it may be possible that Ham actually had sex with Noah (to "see/uncover the nakedness" is usually a sex euphemism). But it's also possible he just didn't show proper respect by looking away when he noticed Noah was drunk and naked.

No one seems to be sure why Canaan is cursed for his father Ham's actions. Canaan had nothing to do with the "nakedness" of Noah! It could be because Canaan was Ham's firstborn- therefore, the curse ruins Ham's bloodline and thus hurts Ham indirectly. Another possibility is that this little story with Ham, Noah's nakedness, and Canaan's curse is a later addition- put in to justify the horrible massacres the Hebrews committed in the land of Canaan (descended from Canaan himself) during the period of Joshua's violent conquest.

In verse 6: "Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
for in his own image
God made humankind."
Most people don't use this verse to justify capital punishment anymore, though once upon a time they may have done so. Nowadays this verse isn't used in that way- especially by Christians, for whom such a blood-for-blood law is moot, under the new rule of Grace.

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

I believe that the reason why God says that He'll never destroy the world again in Genesis, and then II Peter says in one of his letters that the world will be destroyed by fire, is because the word "world" has a different meaning in each book. In Genesis, God's "world" means all life on the earth, while Peter's "world" means the whole universe. God promises that he'll never have "all flesh cut off from the face of the earth". This is called the "Noahic Covenant" and is symbolized in the first rainbow. Peter's prophecy in II Pet. 3:3-10 is about God transforming the universe at the molecular level (the "elements" in v.10) through holy fire, utterly destroying ANY form of evil and sin and imperfection. No more guns, prisons or wheelchairs because these things are results of man's fallen condition. The present "world" WILL be destroyed, but not in a way that the human mind can comprehend...in a sort of "universal rapture". It will just be the renewal of all things to a believer, but to the unbeliever, it will mean the end of all the "stuff" that he lives for: all that he can touch and feel and experience with his fleshly self.

There could be something to the idea that Ham raped his father while he was passed out drunk. And the "proof" could be in why Noah "cursed" Canaan for his father's perversion. The descendants of Canaan, the Canaanites, were the most sexually perverted people in ancient times...EVEN by pagan standards! If you want to know why Leviticus is so "no-no" on things like homosexuality (the kind Paul talks about in Romans), incest and beastiality, it's because the Lord didn't want the Israelites to live like the Canaanites, from whom their immorality had cost them posession of the Holy Land.

These guys were SICK! One archaelogist uncovered a pagan temple in this area that had over 100 phallic-shaped idols that were used pretty much as DILDOS (sorry, there is no "family way" to describe what went on there) by those that worshipped at this horrid temple. The worshipper would engage in sexual acts of ALL SORTS, with male and female temple prostitutes, claiming that the pagan gods were pleased by seeing sexual enjoyment within their temples. The place was pretty much a "holy brothel", like the Greek and Roman temples were in their days. And God wanted His children to have nothing to do with them. Why?

The Canaanites believed this way because they saw the pleasing of one's self as the main purpose of living. Remember the old song: "You and me, baby, are nothing but mammals...So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel"? Their whole lives were the epitomy of that. Their "religion" was just a "world-view" that said that man's only purpose is to gratify his every desire...which is also the world-view of the official Church of Satan. And who taught these people this? Their old grampa Ham!

As you know, I was raised within a sexual abusive home, where I was raped almost each night as a child, and pornography was easily accessed...and has hounded me ever since. Studying the backgrounds of other adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and comparing them with my own, I have learned sexual abuse isn't about human sexuality, but about POWER. The abuser gets his "rocks off" by destroying a child's innocence through sex. This can become a cycle of violence that isn't stopped. If you remember Jim Jones, he had abused both men and women within his cult. He even came home one night from visiting male prostitutes, woke up his wife and kids...and GLEEFULLY told them about how "fun" it was RAPING those teenage boys! RIGHT TO HIS OWN FAMILY! To this day, his grown-up children are fighting personal traumas and "demons" that this monster had put upon them.

And this is how Ham was probably like: Ham raped Noah. Noah told Ham what his sexually perverted thinking was doing to himself and his family. Noah and the other two sons move away with their families. Ham starts abusing others, including his own children. Canaan, the eldest and probably the most abused and hurt, trying to grow up within a dysfunctional background, starts thinking like his old man, and begins to abuse HIS kids. The process is repeated and becomes "normal" on down through the generations of Canaanite children. It becomes just another kind of "religion" by the time of Abraham is told by God that his children will take over the land by his descendants as punishment for becoming so wicked and perverse. Sodom and Gomorrah, towns that were built by the WORST of the Canaanites, are destroyed for being so evil from living in this perverse way of thinking for so long, and the rest of them are told by God to be destroyed when the Hebrews come up from Egypt and start taking over things.

Noah didn't "curse" Canaan as much as he told Ham, in his own way, that "he who sews to the wind...will reap the WHIRLWIND".

As for capital punishment...I AM ALL FOR IT! Whenever I watch on Dateline about these perverts that try to sneak into people's home and rape their kids, I want to jump through the TV screen and grab these sick a-holes and STRANGLE them with my bare hands! Such people like them, as well as the terrorists of 9/11 and Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein DESERVE to be killed a MILLION times over!

Yes, grace is what we Christians are to live by...but, honey, there are some people who ENJOY evil and must be stopped by any means necessary...including by the electric chair!

-- Edited by TaterHead at 15:22, 2006-06-22

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

the terrorists of 9/11 and Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein DESERVE to be killed a MILLION times over!
Yes, grace is what we Christians are to live by... some people who ENJOY evil and must be stopped by any means necessary...

I guess that could be; maybe they do deserve to die. But is it our place to kill them? One thing I realized recently is that there's so much talk of killing and being killed in the Mosaic Law, but most of that was to prevent the killing, because killing for revenge just breeds an endless cycle. You don't stop murderers by murdering them; the only way to stop the killing is NOT to do it- even if the person deserves it!

-- Edited by Chris at 17:04, 2006-06-22

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Genesis Chapter 11

God doesn't say why he wants to stop the construction of the city and tower of Babel. He just vaguely expresses a desire to keep humans from accomplishing too much too quickly. Yes, the traditional explanation for the Babel incident is that the people were too proud, so God scattered them. Another possible reason is that by building a huge city and staying together in one place like that, they were disobeying God's command to spread out and populate the entire Earth.

Genesis Chapter 12

I suppose it's easy to read "all nations being blessed through Abraham" through Jesus-glasses, and say "well, it's because Christ was Abraham's descendant; this text points to Jesus!" That may be so. But the original text probably ran more along the lines of "all nations will wish to be blessed like Abraham was." This second text is more likely what was intended, but it's not as fun as finding a Jesus-prophecy this far back in history.

Genesis Chapter 14

According to my study bibles, there is little or no non-Biblical history that mentions this "war of many kings"-- but there is archaeological evidence of massive destruction at about the time of the story's setting (ca. 2000 BC), which completely halted cultural progress in the area.

When Abram refuses to accept payment for his services in the war, it's actually a very clever move. Not only does it display faith in God's promises, but the refusal of payment elevates Abram above mercenary status, and puts these local kings forever in his debt. VERY smart. Most people in this situation would probably just take the money.

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

I think that the reason why the nations would be blessed by Abram because here is where monotheism REALLY began. It is through Abram that we now have the three major religions that have shaped the world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. All three call Abram as their "founder"; the first person on earth to establish the following of a single deity.