An interesting question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


jlf1961 -> An interesting question (7/26/2010 1:43:05 PM)

Ever notice that man was created twice in Genesis?


Genesis 1:27
quote:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


In this passage, God creates man and woman at the same time. On the sixth day.

Who were the first man and woman God created?

Genesis 2:7 (Please note that this is AFTER the seventh day)
quote:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Adam spends his time naming the animals then God decides Adam should not be alone, so...


Genesis 2:21-2:22
quote:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man
.

And after being expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve had children, and we all know the story of Cain and Abel, and Cain's exile into the land of Nod.

But there is also another problem, Cain has a wife:

Genesis 4:17
quote:

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Where did Cain's wife come from?

History dates the first human civilization, the transition from hunter/gatherers to farmers around 10,000 BCE.

Now, the old testament of the bible covers a period of history, as I understand, of about 4000 years. The historic books of the bible cover the period from 1451BCE to 150BCE, or the period from the time the Hebrews reached the promised land to just before the birth of Christ.

There seems to be a lot of time not covered, and of course the question, where did the other people come from.





LaTigresse -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 1:45:47 PM)

I am sure you know that the bible has been so bastardized from the original writings that none of it makes much sense. So much has been deleted. So much has been tweaked to give more power to churches. It's pretty much worthless in my eyes.




Rule -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 1:49:46 PM)

As it happens, I have pondered the start of Genesis for the past two weeks - again. I have a few - surprising - results. But otherwise: it is a mess that I despair of solving.




Kirata -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 2:58:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Ever notice that man was created twice in Genesis?

FYI

Not two creations... two different creation stories, from two different source texts.

What Are the J, E, and P Texts of Genesis?

Hebrew Society, History, Religion, and Texts

K.




tazzygirl -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 3:02:56 PM)

I always took the bible as a story of one people. Sort of like US history that doesnt discuss all the happenings in Europe at the same time.




Moonhead -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 3:30:10 PM)

There are various opinions and explanations, but I always liked the story that Cain's other half was Adam's first partner, Lillith.




BitaTruble -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 3:38:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


There seems to be a lot of time not covered, and of course the question, where did the other people come from.




I'm going to qualify this by saying that I may very well have a warped perception and do think of the bible as just another book but it seems to me there is nothing in there that precludes the idea that while *God* may have made Adam first followed by Eve, there's no real reason to believe he didn't make other folks after that in the same sort of way. Man being mankind rather than *a* man.




jlf1961 -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 3:39:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Ever notice that man was created twice in Genesis?

FYI

Not two creations... two different creation stories, from two different source texts.

What Are the J, E, and P Texts of Genesis?

Hebrew Society, History, Religion, and Texts

K.



There is this little part of Jewish Folklore, which tells us that Adam had a first wife:

quote:

The Alphabet of Ben Sira is considered to be the oldest form of the story of Lilith as Adam's first wife. Whether this particular tradition is older is not known. Scholars tend to date the Alphabet between the 8th and 10th centuries AD. (The attribution to the sage Ben Sira is considered false, with the true author unknown.) The amulets used against Lilith that were thought to derive from this tradition are in fact, dated as being much older. The concept of Eve having a predecessor is not exclusive to the Alphabet, and is not a new concept, as it can be found in Genesis Rabbah. However, the idea that Lilith was the predecessor is exclusive to the Alphabet. According to Gershom Scholem, the author of the Zohar, R. Moses de Leon, was aware of the folk tradition of Lilith. He was also aware of another story, possibly older, that may be conflicting.

The idea that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts; while Genesis 2:22 describes God's creation of Eve from Adam's rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The Alphabet text places Lilith's creation after God's words in Genesis 2:18 that "it is not good for man to be alone"; in this text God forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam but she and Adam bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way they were equal and she refuses to submit to him:


When she refused to submit to Adam, she fled Eden and became a demon.

quote:

After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone.' He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air.

Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof, to bring her back.

Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, what is made is good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.’

'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.’


It would seem there have been questions concerning the two accounts in Genesis for a period of time, since before Christ.




reynardfox -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 5:30:31 PM)

The first woman was called Lilith, Eve was a later model.




TheHeretic -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 5:47:15 PM)

Gee. It's almost like the book was compiled from more than one oral tradition, and they decided not to fight forever about which one was right.

Of course, this sort of thing is tons of fun if you are interested in talking to the morons of the Falwell Creed, but anyone who considers this a smoking gun for atheism is obviously just as dumb they are.




jlf1961 -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 6:51:39 PM)

If you, as some fundamentalists do, were to take the bible as the history of humanity from creation until the time of Christ, you then have a few questions, all raised by Genesis.

The primary one being, where did Cain's wife come from?

There is a major taboo against incest in the bible, so he didnt marry a sister.

Therefore, if man were created twice, as it seems following the Genesis account, were the first man and woman "primitive" as compared to Adam and Eve, or was the first account the creation of Adam and his first wife Lilith?





vincentML -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 7:10:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I always took the bible as a story of one people. Sort of like US history that doesnt discuss all the happenings in Europe at the same time.


Yep, time zone problem. Is why god had to rest. Jet lag yanno.




vincentML -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 7:13:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Gee. It's almost like the book was compiled from more than one oral tradition, and they decided not to fight forever about which one was right.

Of course, this sort of thing is tons of fun if you are interested in talking to the morons of the Falwell Creed, but anyone who considers this a smoking gun for atheism is obviously just as dumb they are.


Ouch. You're being a bit harsh. Not like you at all.[:)]




Elisabella -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 7:16:50 PM)

I haven't read those stories in a long time but imo it seems like the Adam and Eve story is talking about the specific origin of the Israelite tribe (naming their descendants etc) and the other one is talking about God creating people in general.




thornhappy -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 7:40:16 PM)

There are other inconsistencies...in the book of Judges, Judges are kickass and priests were not; in the book of Kings, kings are badass and judges are not.  And several sets of laws given to Moses on Sinai.

I studied in the documentary hypothesis mode back in the late '70s, but it looks like scholars are moving away from the idea that the Hebrew Bible's composed of several monolithic works and moving towards the thought that the HB's composed from a multitude of scattered sources.




tazzygirl -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 8:18:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I always took the bible as a story of one people. Sort of like US history that doesnt discuss all the happenings in Europe at the same time.


Yep, time zone problem. Is why god had to rest. Jet lag yanno.


Snarky to the end.




Termyn8or -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 8:20:49 PM)

Many times I have tried to justify creation with evolution. A good part of my life I have believed that creation was accomplished via evolution. That religion is simply an attempt to understand the process, but done by those in the past who were not very logical and were superstitious.

Thusfar believing that we are something more than very smart animals is still faith in a way. My beliefs are so far removed from this discussion that I will not even bring them up, but I got more proof than any adherant to the Judeo-Christian belief system.

The fact is that if you hold those views, you just have to bear with a few contradictions. Now we are in a place where I should explain myself. I speak of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and to be fair, I have to remember my own words, and belief.

First of all these contradictions are not what caused me to not believe, it is the whole body of the concept. These contradictions really don't mean much. The timeline is easily explainable for example. You read about the first, second, all the way up to the seventh day. Tell me how long a day was before the Earth existed. In fact Man invented the concept of measuring time period. If God is forever, and exists for eternity what the hell would He care how many days have passed, in anyone's measurement ?

So basically, before recorded history a day could mean a billion years. There is geological evidence, and that is the only way to reconcile this without driving yourself batty.

However this land of Nod issue is a real thorn in the side. If Adam was the first Man and lived in the Garden Of Eden until they got kicked out, the question is where did this supposed Wife come from ? OK, the only way to reconcile this one [some of you might just not want to read this] contradiction is that that Wife was a well developed primate, almost ready to be human.

That would mean that we would be compatible with apes and other primates. Scientists will not touch the subject with a ten foot pole. Perhaps some have, but they will not go public with their findings for obvious reasons. Therefore the data with which to clear this up not likely to ever exist, but that is the only explanaition I can come up with. Take a crack at it if you think you can do better. Either there were other people or there were not.

I have also pondered the existence of the human soul. Maybe not exclusively human but I can prove it in a couple sentences. Though it might seem off topic to some, I don't agree and will proceed.

For example the spaceship comes and takes you away. Whether or not you want to go is not the issue, but they make an absolutely perfect copy of you to leave in your place. It does pretty much as you would do, and will age and nobody knows the better. Perfect copy in every way including whatever physical or mental anomalities you may have. Totally indiscernable from you, period. Your kids, family and friends, associates, business partners see no difference because there is none. Your copy reacts and responds in every way exactly as you would. Exactly.

Where are YOU ? You are not at home or work or whatever, you are on a spaceship somewhere or on another planet. It doesn't matter if it is by choice, YOU are there. I have successfully wrestled that concept into the mud.

But the land of Nod. Now science claims that human life started in Africa. I do not accept that completely, but I don't reject it either. They have said so many things in my born days and later contradicted themselves that I don't believe most things at face value. So in my view even the bestest scientific data are not good enough, where does that leave the Bible ?

For those who do not aspire to know all about creation and all this, faith can work. It can be a very powerful and positive influence in one's life. I have no right to go on much further because I think I have the power to destroy it, and I believe that to be wrong even though I do not share the faith.

People really have been "saved" from their dispair, gained inner strength through faith and went on to do well after the time all they could see was shit. I have no right to take that away. I consider it a different way of coping with life. But for some, it's all they got.

My Father also raised the question of the land of Nod, and he was no dummy either. He had a few other things to say as well. When Cain slew Abel he must've fucked him up real bad. He firmly believed that the food and air, the environment basically back then was so good that if you wanted to kill someone it took alot of work. He believed that in that environment people did frequently live past 100 years old. That I can accept. For now.

Now realize what this all means. I will say it but I am not asserting it as truth. I think we need more information to really figure it out. But what it looks like right now with the current evidence on the table is that Cain slew Abel and then moved to a different part of Africa and started fucking monkeys.

Please, draw other conculsions, I am not that comfortable with that one. But what else do we have ?

Hate me if you want for being politically incorrect, but I callem as I seeum. What other conclusions can you come up with, without contradicting The Word Of God ?

T




ShoreBound149 -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 8:35:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

and of course the question, where did the other people come from.



Mexico


Saint Shorebound




TheHeretic -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 10:09:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If you, as some fundamentalists do, were to take the bible as the history of humanity from creation until the time of Christ, you then have a few questions, all raised by Genesis.

The primary one being, where did Cain's wife come from?

There is a major taboo against incest in the bible, so he didnt marry a sister.

Therefore, if man were created twice, as it seems following the Genesis account, were the first man and woman "primitive" as compared to Adam and Eve, or was the first account the creation of Adam and his first wife Lilith?






So, you just aren't ready to look at this outside the fundamentalist view of the literal, inerrant, bible, are you? Sorry. Can't help you with that. I'm not even a Christian, much less a fundy. Genesis is the creation myth of a violent middle eastern tribe, with a monotheistic belief system.

If we are just playing with the question though, which came first do you think? The children of the first couple, or the taboos against incest? It does seem like it would have taken at least a few generations for them to decide it was a problem sufficient to create a taboo over.





FatDomDaddy -> RE: An interesting question (7/26/2010 10:16:02 PM)

Ya know... I think its been ovelooked for the last 5,000 years...why this will change how humans view religion!

Mazeltov!




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875