NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.

Lastly, Genesis 10:4, 10:20, 10:31 all talk about how the different nations descended from Japeth, Ham, and Shem respectively, developed according to their languages as well as their clans, but later on the Bible states that all the languages were developed at one time during the Tower of Babel incident, and even says in Genesis 11:1 that the world spoke one language before God says in 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand each other".

You can use this website to look up the different verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Everybody, whether they follow the Bible of not, is welcome to join in the conversation. I ask that there be no bashing of other viewpoints, thank you.

So you are concerned that a collection of myths that have existed as an oral tradition from many different groups of people that were then collected into a book by many authors isnt 100% self consistent.

Well, I think I might have just answered it for you then. The bible isn't 100% true no matter what people tell you. Use it as a guide to live a good life if you wish, but dont take it too literally, as it is just a collection of stories.

Imagine a collected book of all of Stephen King's short works 3000 years into the future after all of the original texts have been lost. The stories would still be essentially the same, but the wording is bound to be different and who says that any of the stories are supposed to go together in one collected world.

So you are concerned that a collection of myths that have existed as an oral tradition from many different groups of people that were then collected into a book by many authors isnt 100% self consistent.

Well, I think I might have just answered it for you then. The bible isn't 100% true no matter what people tell you. Use it as a guide to live a good life if you wish, but dont take it too literally, as it is just a collection of stories.

Imagine a collected book of all of Stephen King's short works 3000 years into the future after all of the original texts have been lost. The stories would still be essentially the same, but the wording is bound to be different and who says that any of the stories are supposed to go together in one collected world.

God, i adore the idea of the Gospel according to Stephen King.

"And lo, Cujo did come down from upon the mountain, and his bark was wroth, and his teeth did flasheth"

Well I imagine the plants were being sustained by "light" since on the first day God says "let there be light" but it isnt till I think the fourth day that the sun is created.

Well I imagine the plants were being sustained by "light" since on the first day God says "let there be light" but it isnt till I think the fourth day that the sun is created.

You don't think God hasn't got hydroponics?

You don't think God hasn't got hydroponics?
He must do. His son was smoking some serious shit.

Here is another one for you. In Genesis 1:26-27 on the 6th day, God made man in his own image - male and female he created them. All on the 6th day. However, in Genesis 2:7 he made man from the dust of the ground, put him in the garden of Eden, made all the animals had Adam name them, decided he hadn't done enough and in verses 2:18-25 he made Eve from one of Adam's ribs - in other words - two different descriptions of how and when Adam and Eve were "made."

I'm a christian (Southern Baptist no less - GASP!!) but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as absolute literal truth (and I know some people who do) has clearly failed "Logic, Reason and Allegory 101" while in school.

I agree that the bible is far too ancient to be taken as a cohesive work. I expect discrepancies when I read it. Taking every word of the bible literally is a dangerous thing called fundamentalism. The bible, though I do not personally follow its teachings, is more of a set of moral guidelines in the form of metaphors. Often times it is a very good guidebook, at others, it is less so. It really doesn't matter what your beliefs are, basic morality is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian mythology. But yes, a moral guidebook filled with discrepancies that are the natural result of age, translation, and oral tradition.

He must do. His son was smoking some serious shit.

I do love the idea of Jesus as a Trustafarian with his rich daddy and huge hydroponic system. I can see him as one of the cast of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" now.

quote:
the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

well im not an expert on the bible but this is my thought mabye morning and evening were just set times because u dont always need light for a set time

Just goes to show that religion is all lies and human error messed it up. Thing is humans invented religion and in my experience you can't argue with 'God' believers, they just won't accept that there is or aren't no gods

Secondly, have you noticed Adam and Eve have belly buttons. Think about it!

the first thing god created in genesis was light then he seperated it from the darkness then on the forth day he created seasons ,days and i am guessing time in general

the first thing god created in genesis was light then he seperated it from the darkness then on the forth day he created seasons ,days and i am guessing time in general

How can he create "time in general" on "the fourth day"?

quote:
the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

well im not an expert on the bible but this is my thought mabye morning and evening were just set times because u dont always need light for a set time

But morning and evening have always been, humans chose the set time which took 100's of years to accurately work out and humans have only been round for a very short time when considered to the age of earth.

Secondly, have you noticed Adam and Eve have belly buttons. Think about it!

According to whom did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

When God creates light (on the first day), he divides time into day and night. This is explicitly stated.

I don't think it's very sensible to take the creation story in Genesis as literally true, whatever religious beliefs one has.

If you look closely the stained glass windows in churches. Also in animated bibles and the like. Just keep your eyes peeled.

Well we tend to refer to ages as though they were days 'the dawn of a new age' and so on.

For those of us who are willing to interpret it a little, substitute 'day' with 'age' and it sounds suspiciously congruent with the Big Bang and Evolutionary theory. (barring the sun/plants thing. Haven't read Genesis in a while but several thousand years of oral tradition will do that to a text...)

I remember a translators note somewhere mentioning that the hebrew 'day' could also be 'aeon' or something like that.

If you look closely the stained glass windows in churches. Also in animated bibles and the like. Just keep your eyes peeled.

So, not in any actual theologically accredited book (i.e. Genesis). This goes beyond the mere clutching at straws here mate.

well it's not gonna say is it. In the animated bible it had the same 'stories' so kinda does credit it really dunn it!

I mean if they can't get the first seven days in the correct order there's not much hope for the rest of it is there?

So, not in any actual theologically accredited book (i.e. Genesis). This goes beyond the mere clutching at straws here mate.

Indeed, it reminds me of Dan Brown starting from 'The Last Supper' and deducing from it that Jesus and Mary Magdelen were married.;)

how about that one as labeled in south park - In the book of joe, Satan goes to heaven and talks to god?

Also god makes light before any luminous objects, and AGAIN, i think people can disprove the firmament.
Ein heller schein am firmament ?

well it's not gonna say is it. In the animated bible it had the same 'stories' so kinda does credit it really dunn it!

Who illustrated it? Trained theologians or artists?

Incidently, the quote button is your friend.

Who illustrated it? Trained theologians or artists?

Incidently, the quote button is your friend.


Try this, even Michelangelo couldn't get it right


http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/AdamNeve/

Try this, even Michelangelo couldn't get it right


http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/AdamNeve/

It's called 'artistic licence', it doesn't mean anything.

It's called 'artistic licence', it doesn't mean anything.

Do you believe in adam and eve?

I do love the idea of Jesus as a Trustafarian with his rich daddy and huge hydroponic system. I can see him as one of the cast of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" now.

I completely agree. It'd be hilarious. And would teach those pesky Christians a lesson about comdemning cannabis.

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.

Lastly, Genesis 10:4, 10:20, 10:31 all talk about how the different nations descended from Japeth, Ham, and Shem respectively, developed according to their languages as well as their clans, but later on the Bible states that all the languages were developed at one time during the Tower of Babel incident, and even says in Genesis 11:1 that the world spoke one language before God says in 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand each other".

You can use this website to look up the different verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Everybody, whether they follow the Bible of not, is welcome to join in the conversation. I ask that there be no bashing of other viewpoints, thank you.

Keep in mind that Genesis is ancient and comes from different sources/oral traditions.

I just googled "history of genesis" and if gave me this site.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

I can't verify for sure that it's accurate, but it looks like a solid site.

Anyway, many Christian Churchs, the Catholic church included believe that many parts of the Bible, particularly a lot of the old testament and even some of the new, like revelations is not literally true. Even the gospels (which, of course, are believed by Christians to depict events that actually happened) have a few inconsistencies from gospel to gospel. However, they still believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and that these stories didn't just end up in the Bible by happenstance.
So what is taught is that though some of the stories aren't literally true, they contain important truths. For example, though many Christians don't take Genesis literally, they believe that some truths can be taken from it. They use Genesis to show that God created men and women and the earth, and you could extrapolate the story to include the whole universe as one of God's creations.

Indeed, it reminds me of Dan Brown starting from 'The Last Supper' and deducing from it that Jesus and Mary Magdelen were married.;)


You are kind of leaving out a whole lot of other details...

You are kind of leaving out a whole lot of other details...

Come on though - those other details are incredibly spurious. Like his 'facts' at the bgeginning of his books - like FACT: 73h v47ic4n 3475 848i35!!!11! ZOMGZ!!! OH 73h NO35!!11 - or something like that anyway :D

Incidentally, for a prime example of how spurious his 'facts' really are, read Deception Point - where the dude pisses on his leg to drive away the sharks; great plan, except for the tiny little detail that sharks are attracted to urine almost as much as blood.

You are kind of leaving out a whole lot of other details...

All of which were bullshit, the painting was the most convincing part of the whole book.

Do you believe in adam and eve?

Nope, I'm an atheist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Adam and Eve only had 3 sons, no daughters, correct? Who did they marry then?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Adam and Eve only had 3 sons, no daughters, correct? Who did they marry then?

I don't think we're ever told.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Adam and Eve only had 3 sons, no daughters, correct? Who did they marry then?

800 years of sex with Eve would certainly produce more than 3 sons...:D

Genesis 5:3-5 (NIV)
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

I don't think we're ever told.


800 years of sex with Eve would certainly produce more than 3 sons...:D

Genesis 5:3-5 (NIV)
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

I stand corrected.

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.

Lastly, Genesis 10:4, 10:20, 10:31 all talk about how the different nations descended from Japeth, Ham, and Shem respectively, developed according to their languages as well as their clans, but later on the Bible states that all the languages were developed at one time during the Tower of Babel incident, and even says in Genesis 11:1 that the world spoke one language before God says in 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand each other".

You can use this website to look up the different verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Everybody, whether they follow the Bible of not, is welcome to join in the conversation. I ask that there be no bashing of other viewpoints, thank you.

There are logical answers to these questions. I wish I was not at work so that I would have time to do them justice. Oh well, I will check this thread when I get home tonight and see if anyone has posted any answers other than "hey its all fiction" or some such.:(

The crazy story in the bible is when God makes a bet with Satan over whether Job can be broken or not.

I completely agree. It'd be hilarious. And would teach those pesky Christians a lesson about comdemning cannabis.

Well, they only condemn cannabis because the drug of choice for Christian prophets tended to be mushrooms. St John of Patmos anyone?

Most monotheistic religions came from fairly hot parts of the world, stock in trade of the holy book writing Prophets was spending a lot of time in the desert sun without food or more importantly water!.

THIS CAUSES SUNSTROKE!

As a result of sunstroke, people hallucinate, and come up with a shed load of craziness!

In modern times, we treat these people in Hospitals. Back in the day, it was believed. Come on people. Too much sun is bad for your mental health. Mind you you can grow great peyote in the desert!

800 years of sex with Eve would certainly produce more than 3 sons...:D

Genesis 5:3-5 (NIV)
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Interesting that...the human race was, therefore, bred out of Seth and these un-named daughters. So,i must ask...isn't incest a mortal sin?

Interesting that...the human race was, therefore, bred out of Seth and these un-named daughters. So,i must ask...isn't incest a mortal sin?
Not until Moses handed down the word.

Not until Moses handed down the word.

Oh, thats cool. It's only a sin from a certain point.

But, umm, isn't god all knowing and all seeing, all present in all time and space? Wouldn't he have known he was going to make it a mortal sin? Or did he change his mind? Did he make a mistake?

Interesting that...the human race was, therefore, bred out of Seth and these un-named daughters. So,i must ask...isn't incest a mortal sin?

No. Haven't you heard of mormons?

Oh, thats cool. It's only a sin from a certain point.

But, umm, isn't god all knowing and all seeing, all present in all time and space? Wouldn't he have known he was going to make it a mortal sin? Or did he change his mind? Did he make a mistake?
Actually scientifically there was one original human man and human woman and their was inter breeding to form the human race.

That's the way breeds are made in animals today.

Actually scientifically there was one original human man and human woman and their was inter breeding to form the human race.

That's the way breeds are made in animals today.


That's not my understanding of evolution, but perhaps you could provide a source that I may consult for my enlightenment.

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.

Lastly, Genesis 10:4, 10:20, 10:31 all talk about how the different nations descended from Japeth, Ham, and Shem respectively, developed according to their languages as well as their clans, but later on the Bible states that all the languages were developed at one time during the Tower of Babel incident, and even says in Genesis 11:1 that the world spoke one language before God says in 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand each other".

You can use this website to look up the different verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Everybody, whether they follow the Bible of not, is welcome to join in the conversation. I ask that there be no bashing of other viewpoints, thank you.

Are you studying the Bible with an expectation that you are reading a scientific journal giving an account of Creation?
Seems to me that you are reading with a modern literalist bias.

Some portions of the Bible record events, legal issues, ancestral lineage that many accept as "literal" truth.

Other parts are clearly poetry, song, parable, allegorical prophecy, etc.

The Book of Genesis is obviously a collection of the known stories up to the point that Moses begins recording the Law for the Israelites.

Taking Genesis as a story book that teaches "truths" rather than as a text book is more likely in keeping with it's intent and doesn't invalidate text book quality truth coming from other authors nor does it necessarily call into question the teachings and philosophy of the Bible.

That's not my understanding of evolution, but perhaps you could provide a source that I may consult for my enlightenment.
At each step of evolution there is a change in the genetic material of one animal (or plant). In order to isolate that gene, interbreeding takes place. This is normally because that change makes for better survival so the offspring are available to breed with and others are not. Sometimes, like on an island, it's a physical isolation that forces interbreeding. That's why evolution takes place faster on an island. Anyway the change is in just one individual. Anyone who gets that change has to be a child of that one individual.

In breeding animals (or plants) geneticists find (or now make) a genetic change, then interbreed until that change is predictably in the offspring. That is how different breeds of dogs, cats, cows, or corn takes place.

I shall attempt to answer these questions with a little more respect than most of you have treated the subject with:

1. Morning and Evening are not descriptions of the suns activities, rather, they are indicators of time. Before the creation of matter, there was not time (ie God created time). This therefore, is stating that the first "day" was created. We do not now know whether this was a day in the sense of our understanding of days (a 24 hour period) or some other amount of time.

2. The plants survived because during creation there was not death. Death was a result of the fall (Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit). This means that there would be no problem with death, because it does not yet exist.

3. I think that you would find the question to the third original question just a poor english translation. There were two words in the OT that are both translated as "language" but in reality, one (the one used first) actually means dialect. In other words, there were several dialects of one language, and at the Tower of Babel the languages were diversified.

4. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are retellings of the same story. It is like a recap, with some different details.

5. About the incest. Yes, I think incest was a sin from the beginning. Yes, I think the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were involved in incest. The issue is, God didn't give the law until Moses. Perhaps God had a reason for allowing this action to take place. For example, in Numbers God praises a man named Phineaus for entering into a tent where an Isrealite man and a Moabite woman are having sex, and Phineaus stabs them with a spear. It is murder! However, God praises Phineaus for being zealous for the name of the Lord. If you look at the story as a whole, it makes complete sense. Phineaus was killing them because what they were doing was sinful, and an intentional break from God's will. Perhaps, if people would stop trying to find problems with the Bible, they would see the obvious necessity of these supposed contradictions. God knows more than we do, and our logic is not as great as His logic (it says that in the Scripture).

I think the problem most of you have is a lack of understanding as to the language of Hebrew (they didn't even have the verb "is" in their language), and also a lack of understanding the culture that God revealed himself to. Their culture is very different from a culture that we know, so naturally God revealed himself in ways they would understand, even if that means it is harder for us to understand.

Oh, and to whoever said that God Believers won't listen. Just remember: There are no athiests on the death bed.

...the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?
I've wondered about some of those things too. I've read some books by a man named Gerald Schroeder that gives some really compelling answers. I think he has written at least 3 books on the subject, but I would recommend The Science of God (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076790303X/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/102-5852325-2867308?%5Fencoding=UTF8) as a great place to start.

I think that last quote is stupid. Unless someone comes up with actual proof that a god exists before I die, I'm dying an Atheist.

EDIT: I swear, The Religon of Peace's post wasn't there when I went to post.

(I do realize that the creation story was meant not to be taken literally, and only helps to grasp the concept.)

Time was invented by man, so there might not have been any other way for that perticular bible writer to express "The next day."

The reason there are discrepancies in the bible is the same reason their are discrepancies between reality and the Norse myths. Its because they are myths.:)

"[the bible is...] more of a set of moral guidelines in the form of metaphors"

If everyone believed this the world would be a beter place

"God knows more than we do, and our logic is not as great as His logic"

The ultimate get out clause of all religons

(I do realize that the creation story was meant not to be taken literally, and only helps to grasp the concept.)

Time was invented by man, so there might not have been any other way for that perticular bible writer to express "The next day."
No, time was created by the big bang. That is why in physics they don't say "space" or "time." They call it "space-time." It is the same thing. There was no time before the big bang because there was no space before the big bang. Time started then. The big bang was the first "moment."

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.


I think the concept of all powerful really just isn't clear to you. God could have essestially just thought "The plants will live and be good" and they would have. That's the concept of omnipotence. You're really grasping here by the way...

I've got a bad feeling im going to take an increadible amount of flak for actually trying to defend the Bible here, but here goes:
Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

Morning and evening do not require the sun to rise and fall, they are fixed times inside 24 hour periods, (Or at least fixed in terms of what general hour it is) or, if you will take another literal translation of "day" in Genesis, unknown lengths of time which were convienently stated as morning and evening for the sake of writing Genesis. Honestly, it does seem kind of silly the second way of thinking of the word "day", because it's basically just writing it off as a metaphor for sake of convience, which is another reason why im an on-the-edge 6 day creation fundamentalist! (Who, as I think somebody noted below, supposedly is now a "failure in understanding of theology 101" or something) But anyway, although morning and evening are often typically referred to in terms of the sun rising or setting, they don't necessarily have to relate, take the north pole for example, there is morning and evening up there even when the sun does not rise or set on 24 hour intervals during pretty much all of the year as I understand it.

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.

Most plants could probably survive a measly 24 hours without sunlight, And Genesis 1:12 says that the plants bore seed and the trees bore fruit, nothing about plants being in a state of flowering necessarily. or God perhaps stocked them with extra glucose on a cellular level or something along that line of thinking, Besides, what's so outrageous that God could simply will the cells in the plants to continue to have an energy source without becoming the Sun? He's infinitly powerful and infinitly smart, and even in my tiny imagination I could think of a few ways to use infinite power to keep plants alive without sunlight, im sure God thought up a way that's better than mine.

Lastly, Genesis 10:4, 10:20, 10:31 all talk about how the different nations descended from Japeth, Ham, and Shem respectively, developed according to their languages as well as their clans, but later on the Bible states that all the languages were developed at one time during the Tower of Babel incident, and even says in Genesis 11:1 that the world spoke one language before God says in 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand each other".

There's 2 ways I can see this to not be a contradiction. If you look at Genesis 11:10, it starts off with the account of Shem again, after Genesis notes the Tower of Babel story. As with Genesis 1 and 2, it seems the account was given deliberatly to not be in chronological order by verses, since Shem was apparently already discussed in Genesis 10. Furthermore, in Genesis 10, the account is listing the chronology of Japeth, then through his son Gomer, then through his other son Javen. Considering how long people lived in those days, I don't see why the Babel story could not chronologically fit somewhere inside Genesis 10:4, and looking at thing in context that way, it is easily no longer a contradiction. The other way I can think of is that the language being talked about in Genesis 10:4 is merely semantic differences so it's not really literally obvious in syntax but still allows it all to be the same language in general, but honestly, thinking about it to myself, this second reason seems a really weak excuse. The first one seems far more reasonable, since it's fundamentally the same as the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 situation anyway, and that works out fine.

You can use this website to look up the different verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Everybody, whether they follow the Bible of not, is welcome to join in the conversation. I ask that there be no bashing of other viewpoints, thank you.

I hope i've been able to give you some answers you can understand, if I haven't I can always try again if you want me to :/.

"No, time was created by the big bang. That is why in physics they don't say "space" or "time." They call it "space-time." It is the same thing. There was no time before the big bang because there was no space before the big bang. Time started then. The big bang was the first "moment.""

So, mister science genius, lets say that the big bang THEORY is accurate. What caused the big bang? (you say swirling gas mixing together) and to that I respond "Where did the gas come from? (You may give an answer such as "even smaller particles that eventually came together to form gas") to which I again respond "Where did those particles come from?

At some point, there had to be a creator. A being that is above science, or else none of our scientific theories would pan out. In fact, the Big Band and Evolution go against a natural trend for matter to simplify. The truth is that nothing exists without a higher being to create it. The only question left for you to ask is, "Who is this God?" If you want to ask my opinion feel free, I'll love to tell you

You're getting confused as to what the Big Bang really was. It wasn't all matter condensed into a single point of singularity. It was most likely a knot of curved space that unkinked itself. There was no matter as we know this term that was present at the time. Just some kind of pure gravitational field with an enormous density of energy and curvature.

I read a paper on it that worked out how much matter would be needed to create our universe. At the scale they're looking at (a planck unit or smaller), because of the immense gravitaitonal field (and all 4 fields would have been as one), something like only 20 pounds of matter would be needed. In the initial expanse, because of the Higgs field* fluctuations all mass was created then. This is because mass properties of all particles, such as electrons, are created based on their interactions with the Higgs field.

Remember, time didn't start to exist until the universe happened. So it's almost pointless to ask what happened before the big bang. There was no 'before'. Space and time didn't start until the big bang.
Even St. Augustine of Hippo came to the same conclusion. He stated that the world was made "not in time, but simultaneously with time."

Time and space can suffer distortions as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity.

This is also why we have time as an arrow. It is always going in one direction (forward), and can never go backward. The concept of this is actually a very difficult one to answer using physics, because time, unlike everything else, is not symmetrical. But I digress.

That still leaves the question of why should time switch on? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Here's where quantum physics comes to the rescue.
Quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. Things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. This explains in part the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where we can know the position but not the momentum of an article (or vice versa). We can never be 100% certain where a particle is, only have a good idea of where it is. We have probability curves that can tell us the most likely place. So an atom in your body could have a 99.999% prob of being there in the next second, or it could suddenly disappear and reappear on Jupiter.

Thankfully, this only happens on the quantum level, which is why the moon (or indeed ourselves) stay in pretty much the same spot.

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

So now we get to another field of thought: Quantum cosmology. Two famous quantum cosmologists, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, expanded on an idea by History's greatest physicist: Einstein.
Einstein not only found that space and time are part of the physical universe; he also found that they are linked in a very intimate way. In fact, space on its own and time on its own are no longer properly valid concepts. Instead, we must deal with a unified "space-time" continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum.

In spite of the space-time linkage, however, space is space and time is time under almost all circumstances. Whatever space-time distortions gravitation may produce, they never turn space into time or time into space. An exception arises, though, when quantum effects are taken into account. That all-important uncertainty prinicple that afflicts quantum systems can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.

The spatialization of time is not something abrupt; it is a continuous process. Viewed in reverse as the temporalisation of (one dimension of) space, it implies that time can emerge out of space in a continuous process.

The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.

So to answer the question: What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: Nothing.





*To explain the Higgs field, a contest was held in Britain to find the best layperson's explanation for it. One of the winning entries was this one:
Imagine a cocktail party of political party workers who are uniformly distributed across the floor, all talking to their nearest neighbours. The ex-Prime Minister enters and crosses the room. All of the workers in her neighbourhood are strongly attracted to her and cluster round her. As she moves she attracts the people she comes close to, while the ones she has left return to their even spacing. Because of the knot of people always clustered around her she acquires a greater mass than normal, that is she has more momentum for the same speed of movement across the room. Once moving she is hard to stop, and once stopped she is harder to get moving again because the clustering process has to be restarted.

In three dimensions, and with the complications of relativity, this is the Higgs mechanism. In order to give particles mass, a background field is invented which becomes locally distorted whenever a particle moves through it. The distortion - the clustering of the field around the particle - generates the particle's mass.
http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs.html



(yeah, I've got a slow day at school. I finished my two classes for the day at 10.30, but I have to stay here 'til 4pm. Nothing else to do but read up on quantum physics. It passes the time)

First of all, for all those who say I'm a literalist, I am not. I just didn't want to offend certain people by submitting to a certain interpretation.

Also, for all those who say the Bible is fiction: you may be right, and you may not be right; but I ask that you try to respond to the material I set forward rather than just brushing it off. Fiction or not, the Bible is a very important anthropological document (pertains very much to the human race and how it has grown and developed up to the present day).

Here's a new question: how did the old Israelites see their world in following the Bible literally, paradoxes included, and how has this view translated into the present day?

Here's something to fuel the discussion:

The old Israelites would have observed, or would have been told by some other civilization that some plants bore fruit at certain times of the year: otherwise, they would not have been able to farm successfully, and no Israelite cities would have existed (which we know from archaeological evidence is false). However, there is no mention of farming in Genesis except for Cain being a farmer and subsequently being "damned from the land" after killing his brother. The Israelites were mostly shepherds, and they may have forgotten that certain plants could be farmed at the time the Bible was written. The Bible as a whole isn't really concerned with farming either way, it is more concerned with its alleged Writer. Why is this, in light of the paradoxes I brought up?

---------------------------------

Regenius II, if God had just thought "the plants could live and be good" without the sun like you say, their internal workings would either have to change to accomodate the lack of sunlight (with God's help) or God would have had to substitute the sun for His willpower, making Him essentially a sun god relative to the plants, and thus to the humans as well since they initially depend on the plants for their existence (meat-eating isn't allowed until Noah). God might only be a temporary sun god according to this model, but a sun god nonetheless. Plants have a "kind" once they're created, according to the Bible. We'll define "kind" as a plant's physical manifestation, which involves sunlight in order to keep it on this earth. I'll get philosophical. In order for the Biblical God to have some sort of effect on the plants in order to keep them alive, He would have to deal somehow with their physical manifestations.

The light would have to be a substitute for the sun since some plants' physical manifestations involve blooming at certain times of the day, or in certain times of the year, which the Israelites counted according to the number of days (the Israelites used the lunar calendar: the day started when the sun went down, when the sun went down, the moon was more visible). To go further, 1:12 says that the plants bore fruit, but plants can only bear fruit if they bloom and are pollinated, and the Bible designates the sun and the moon as those which "separate day and night".

This leads me into the famous omnipotency paradox:

"Can an omnipotent being create a stone that is so large that he cannot lift it?"

You decide.

The views of quantum physics and the Big Bang are, once again, faulty from the beginning.

The first issue is that you are assuming (there is no proof at this level of science, just educated guesses) that there was a magnetic field around to create matter. This would mean that there must be something, in a sense, before time. No there is nothing within the physical realm that existed, because, as you said, time and matter are inextricably linked. However, in order for there to be a "knot of curved space," there must have been something to create that knot. You see, it doesn't matter what words you use, what explanation that we give, in matters that deal with coming into existance, we simply have no way of truly understanding because it is beyond our comprehension. Even if the THEORY that matter can appear and disappear without warning is true, there is no way that it can explain how matter first existed. The problem is that we live where matter does exist, and that brings with it added rules, laws, and capabilities that without matter were simply not possible. Matter changed the name of the game.

The second problem is that you site all these things as if they were factual. The problem is, there is no proof, and that is why they are all called theories. That is why evolution is still called a theory, it can seem likely, but there is no proof yet. There is no concievable way to prove that an atom ceases to exist here, and appears on Jupiter. Why? First, we have never been to Jupiter, so that is a major problem with that theory. Secondly, if it happens at an atomic level, than we would be lucky to see an atom disappear, let alone attempt to decipher where it would appear on this world, or if it would even appear on this world. Therefore, even if an atom disappears, which there can be no proof of, as we cannot get an a completely accurate view of an atom while it is still in full motion anyway, there is no way of proving that it shows up anywhere again. The holes in these theories are as big as the theories themselves.

Oh, and just a thought, Einstien himself said that when you study the universe there is no conceivable way to understand it without God. He was a believer in God. He had theories on the science of it, as do we all, but there can be no proof. The only thing we no is this: At some point, there must have be a creator to create either everything we see in one instant, a wrinkle of magnetic energy, or something else. There must be a God that exist outside the realm of matter and time (space-time) and science, strong enough to orchestrate the creation of science and matter and time.

Grace and Peace

I don't think God would need to become a sun god, because if God created the world, he also created science, therefore God supercedes science. He doesn't have to play by the scientific rules of filling in for sun, he can just say live, and things would. It is the amazing thing about God, he makes the rules, and thus, controls the rules, and thus doesn't have to follow them. He can raise dead, keep things alive, make things die, without regard to science.

Here is another one for you. In Genesis 1:26-27 on the 6th day, God made man in his own image - male and female he created them. All on the 6th day. However, in Genesis 2:7 he made man from the dust of the ground, put him in the garden of Eden, made all the animals had Adam name them, decided he hadn't done enough and in verses 2:18-25 he made Eve from one of Adam's ribs - in other words - two different descriptions of how and when Adam and Eve were "made."

I'm a christian (Southern Baptist no less - GASP!!) but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as absolute literal truth (and I know some people who do) has clearly failed "Logic, Reason and Allegory 101" while in school.


Father Michael Sweeney would say that was "bad exegesis"

Here is another one for you. In Genesis 1:26-27 on the 6th day, God made man in his own image - male and female he created them. All on the 6th day. However, in Genesis 2:7 he made man from the dust of the ground, put him in the garden of Eden, made all the animals had Adam name them, decided he hadn't done enough and in verses 2:18-25 he made Eve from one of Adam's ribs - in other words - two different descriptions of how and when Adam and Eve were "made."

I'm a christian (Southern Baptist no less - GASP!!) but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as absolute literal truth (and I know some people who do) has clearly failed "Logic, Reason and Allegory 101" while in school.
I would like to ask what you define as a Christian... just curious. Cuz if there's one flaw in the Bible, you can assume the rest is trash- there's no point in devoting your life to following a book with a flaw.
Also, I don't see how there's a contradiction to begin with in these verses. It all happened on the same day, and whether or not they were created at the same exact time, both Adam and Eve were created in God's image on the 6th day. By the way I don't think it's fair to say I've failed Logic 101 and all that, because clearly if there is serious debate about it, it can't be as obvious as you seem to claim it is. I'll let you decide on whether what I just said is logical or not

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

Another example is that all the plants were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-1:13), before the sun, on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-1:19). The answer I got for this one was that God in His omnipotent power kept the plants alive even without the sun. However, thinking about this more, this would mean that God would have had to either change the form of the plants so they could survive without the sun until the fourth day, or substitute for the sun Himself. The former is against the "according to their kinds" phrase in Genesis 1:11, since that would mean the plants had changed "kinds" after the sun was created. The latter is against the theology surrounding God, since this would mean that God would have had to become a sun god in a certain respect to keep the plants alive. One could argue that the plants sustained themselved off the light that was created on Day One, but some plants bloom at certain times of the day. Since there's nothing to "separate day and night" yet on day Three (essentially the same paradox as the first one I mentioned), the plants that bloom at certain times of the day would have withered.

Lastly, Genesis 10:4, 10:20, 10:31 all talk about how the different nations descended from Japeth, Ham, and Shem respectively, developed according to their languages as well as their clans, but later on the Bible states that all the languages were developed at one time during the Tower of Babel incident, and even says in Genesis 11:1 that the world spoke one language before God says in 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand each other".

You can use this website to look up the different verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Everybody, whether they follow the Bible of not, is welcome to join in the conversation. I ask that there be no bashing of other viewpoints, thank you.

Easy. It's not a literal story. Suppose God gave the prophets visions of the creation of objects, each vision lasted a day (thus the six days reference). The prophets did their best to describe what they saw. They viewed evolution and it looked to them like men being created from dust and shaped from clay. OVer time many of the translations have sucked so people get confused about it. Ask nearly anyone who takes creation literally and they'll tell you the descriptions of the end times are figurative because they didn't have words for planes and tanks and whatnot so they did their best to describe the events and concepts they didn't have the ability to describe well.

Or perhaps they were just stories that were meant to teach lessons.

I'm a christian (Southern Baptist no less - GASP!!) but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as absolute literal truth (and I know some people who do) has clearly failed "Logic, Reason and Allegory 101" while in school.
This is one of the things I dont understand. God is supposed to perfect, as is the word of God. But you are admitting that a large portion of bible is false, so if one part is wrong, isnt likely the rest is wrong too? why accept certain parts while rejecting others? please explain.

There are 2 major sources common misreading of the Bible that I think are relevant here.

First, the Bible, as someone mentioned earlier, consists of many genres. There are eithical instructions, parables, songs, poetry, histories, geneologies, narratives, myths, legends, etc. The genre of a certain passage affects how it can be read. This is true of all reading. I do not read a phone book and expect it to tell me how much money to send the phone company, nor do I read my telephone bill to find the phone number of the nearest laundromat. Where reading a modern source, we all intuitively recognize what the genre of the text is.
In the case of a portion of the Bible, there are indicators that the stroies are myths, rater than a strictly historical narrative. There are historical narratives in the Bible (such as the last chapter of Jeremiah); the first portion of Genesis is not one of them. Saying this section is a myth, however, doesn't mean that the story isn't true. Rather it means the focus is not on historical fact but some other intrinsic lesson. In writing a myth, the author says the most important thing to consider is the underlying meaning/moral, rather than he plot points of the story. Thus in Genesis the concern should be with what "truths" the story reveals rather than whether there were 6 24hour days in creation or whether there was a specific "tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Second, the Bible was written from oral histories in a different time in a different culture in a different language. And then the books that became the scripture were written on papyrus, which decays, so scribes made copies, then copies of copies, and copies based on dictation from the oldest copy still in one piece, etc etc etc. We don't have the original texts, and changes can occur as copies are copied.
We also don't have consistent texts. You should notice in any good Bible footnotes indicating differences in the various texts, something along the lines of "Other Hebrew sources say..." or "Greek..." when refering to early greek translations (i.e. the Septuagint). These generally indicate shades of meaning that can be lost in traslation, especially since we are translating from an ancient language. Example, the Hebrew translated as "Red Sea" in Exodus means something more like "Sea of Reeds".
Furthermore, and most at issue here, if you look at the analysis done by Biblical scholars, there is somewhat of a consensus that Genesis is actually the splicing together of multiple narratives. This helps explain many of the descrepancies. The narrative starting in Genesis 1 is from one source; the second creation story, with Adam being formed from dust, is from a second source. Since they're both myths, they can both still be "true" in the sense that they carry a truth in their meaning, even if the "facts" of the narrative don't quite match.

So many of the objections raised to the Bible are based on things people se when they read the Bible through their bias. Reading the Bible requires careful analysis rather than a surface reading, especially with the Old Testament. Like any piece of literature it takes work to figure out what the text is trying to say, rather than approaching the book expecting to find some message. If you want the Bible to contradict itself, you'll see passages that aid that conclusion. If you want the Bible to justify your stance on a social issue, chances are you can find some portion of the text that can be interpreted in such a way that it supports you. Observe what exactly the Bible states, how it says it, what context it's said in, including the historical context, and any other information the Bible itself presents, and maybe then you will get closer to understanding wha exactly the Bible is saying.

Morning and evening aside, I would think an obviouse point is that plants could survive for one day without light? Some might get a little wilty maybe, I'm no horiticulturist, but if they were that frigile, the earth would be a pretty bleak place.

I think the Simarillion feels more ancient than the Bible and it ws only written half a century or more ago.

Let me begin by saying that I'm not a religious person, but I do study the Bible. I recently found three discrepancies in Genesis that nobody I ask can explain. For example, Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31 all talk about how there was "morning and evening" (some translate it as "setting and dawning") in between all six days of creation. Yet, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so how could there be "morning and evening" for the first four days of creation?

The order of creation is very interesting. Light is created on the first day, but the light sources are not created until the fourth day. So you have the concept of day and night, without sun, moon or stars to mark the time. This implies that the earth was rotating with respect to the light. To me, this adds to the veracity of the account. Putting the creation of light ahead of the light source is not something human minds would think of, if they were just making up a story to explain the world. Moses, with his Egyptian education, would hardly make such an obvious error. It is easier for me to believe that this is the order in which God actually did it. And making light without a sun would not require him to be a sun god. Skipping ahead to the Book of Revelation, the new earth will need no sun, because everything will be lit up by God's presence.

Thinking about this point caused me to think of another concept presented in Scripture, which also rings true. People say that if there is a God, he must be more than a person, or "beyond personality," as C.S. Lewis said. And only in the Bible do you have a presentation of a God who is truly beyond personality, once again in a way that ordinary humans would not conceive. One God in three Persons. Simultaneously Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not one God acting sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son and sometimes as Spirit. Always one God, always three Persons. Once again, a non-human concept which people have trouble even apprehending to this day.

Just something to think about...:)

Interesting that...the human race was, therefore, bred out of Seth and these un-named daughters. So,i must ask...isn't incest a mortal sin?

According to the book of Jubilees - one of the books that did not make it into the official cannon, but was widely used and read by early churches - particularly in Ethiopia - Adam and Eve had 9 sons and daughters and Cain, after killing Abel and being banished, ended up marrying his younger sister and having many children with her, including, I believe, Enoch, who wrote the book of Enoch, another of the "banned" books of the bible (it is a fascinating read by the way).

The fact that incest was (and I guess still is) a major sin to the early christians is offered as one explanation as to why Jubilees was rejected and not included in the official cannon after the council of Nycia and Constatine's directive that an official "bible" be put together for the church.

I'm sorry that I can't remember exactly, but I think there is a verse that states that God said incest was no longer ok, even after it had been. I have a feeling this is in Leviticus- actually I'm almost positive it is because that's where all the "sex laws" are.

One theory on why it was ok originally but isn't now is that when God created man, the genes were "perfect"- nothing was wrong with them. This is why it was ok to have incest- it didn't create problems. As time went on and sin came into the world, however, closely related sets of genes became incompatible for reproduction, as they are today. God, knowing this was happening, wanted the best for us and told us not to do it.
I'm not gonna claim this is right, but it is a thought. What do you all think?

This is one of the things I dont understand. God is supposed to perfect, as is the word of God. But you are admitting that a large portion of bible is false, so if one part is wrong, isnt likely the rest is wrong too? why accept certain parts while rejecting others? please explain.

First, the bible is the word of god as interpreted and transcribed by men who are obviously not perfect. Secondly, I have not admitted a "large portion of the bible is false." I merely pointed out what I see as a contradiction in the creation stories found in Genesis 1 and 2 and also stated that I don't believe the creation story of Genesis should be taken literally as some people are wont to do. In other words, I am not a "strict creationist" who believes everything happened in 7, twenty-four hour days. I don't see that as saying a large portion of the bible is false. Much of the bible is clearly metaphor and analogy to teach lessons, some, however, is factual. We could argue all day over which parts are which though since everyone will have his own opinion. Merely showing that one part of the bible isn't factually accurate though does not render the entirety of the rest factually inaccurate though. You're trying to "nit-pick" the bible in a literalist, factual way and show how strict fundamentalists who believe in the literal innerrancy of the bible are wrong to do that. I happen to agree with you on that. That doesn't mean the bible is useless though, just because it is not factually accurate in all regards. Metaphor and analogy are also proper and right, even if they rely on factual innacurrasies to make their point. I don't reject a part of the bible because it is factually in error, I accept it as teaching part of the overall lesson of the bible. You have to take things in context.

I've got a bad feeling im going to take an increadible amount of flak for actually trying to defend the Bible here, but here goes:

Morning and evening do not require the sun to rise and fall, they are fixed times inside 24 hour periods, (Or at least fixed in terms of what general hour it is) or, if you will take another literal translation of "day" in Genesis, unknown lengths of time which were convienently stated as morning and evening for the sake of writing Genesis. Honestly, it does seem kind of silly the second way of thinking of the word "day", because it's basically just writing it off as a metaphor for sake of convience, which is another reason why im an on-the-edge 6 day creation fundamentalist! (Who, as I think somebody noted below, supposedly is now a "failure in understanding of theology 101" or something) But anyway, although morning and evening are often typically referred to in terms of the sun rising or setting, they don't necessarily have to relate, take the north pole for example, there is morning and evening up there even when the sun does not rise or set on 24 hour intervals during pretty much all of the year as I understand it.

Morning and evening take place without the sun on a 24 hour clock, but there is empirical evidence that the 24 hour clock wasn't invented by God.

Most plants could probably survive a measly 24 hours without sunlight, And Genesis 1:12 says that the plants bore seed and the trees bore fruit, nothing about plants being in a state of flowering necessarily. or God perhaps stocked them with extra glucose on a cellular level or something along that line of thinking, Besides, what's so outrageous that God could simply will the cells in the plants to continue to have an energy source without becoming the Sun? He's infinitly powerful and infinitly smart, and even in my tiny imagination I could think of a few ways to use infinite power to keep plants alive without sunlight, im sure God thought up a way that's better than mine.

Genesis 1:12 says that the plants bore seed and the trees bore fruit, but that cannot happen unless they bloom. Some plants, such as daylilies, bloom only at certain times of the day (some only bloom at night!). So in order for these plants to "bloom according to their kinds," something would need to "separate day and night," which Genesis 1 designates as the sun. If God intervened to keep the plants alive Himself, He would have had to "separate day and night" to make the plants "bloom according to their kinds," making Him substitute for the sun and thus become a temporary sun god, which we know is against all theology surrounding God, unless we can count the Aten worshippers from Ancient Egypt as having worshipped the same god that is worshipped in monotheistic religions today.

There's 2 ways I can see this to not be a contradiction. If you look at Genesis 11:10, it starts off with the account of Shem again, after Genesis notes the Tower of Babel story. As with Genesis 1 and 2, it seems the account was given deliberatly to not be in chronological order by verses, since Shem was apparently already discussed in Genesis 10. Furthermore, in Genesis 10, the account is listing the chronology of Japeth, then through his son Gomer, then through his other son Javen. Considering how long people lived in those days, I don't see why the Babel story could not chronologically fit somewhere inside Genesis 10:4, and looking at thing in context that way, it is easily no longer a contradiction. The other way I can think of is that the language being talked about in Genesis 10:4 is merely semantic differences so it's not really literally obvious in syntax but still allows it all to be the same language in general, but honestly, thinking about it to myself, this second reason seems a really weak excuse. The first one seems far more reasonable, since it's fundamentally the same as the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 situation anyway, and that works out fine.

No matter what order you put the verses in, the origin of different languages is very contradictory in a literal sense, and it looks like the second accounts of Shem, Ham, and Japeth were meant to fit into the second explanation, especially because there is no mention of "according to their languages" like in the first list of begettings.

I hope i've been able to give you some answers you can understand, if I haven't I can always try again if you want me to :/.

Thank you for responding to my questions, I really appreciated your answer. Can't wait to hear from you again!

Ah, I get it. I do not believe for one second that you actually think that God being the 'Sun God' is the only way to explain it. The fact that you keep saying that indicates to me that you're not actually looking for answers but simply trying to be difficult. You win. If you refuse to accept explanations given you there will be no explanation. Horray!! You're the champion! Feel better?

First, the bible is the word of god as interpreted and transcribed by men who are obviously not perfect. Secondly, I have not admitted a "large portion of the bible is false." I merely pointed out what I see as a contradiction in the creation stories found in Genesis 1 and 2 and also stated that I don't believe the creation story of Genesis should be taken literally as some people are wont to do. In other words, I am not a "strict creationist" who believes everything happened in 7, twenty-four hour days. I don't see that as saying a large portion of the bible is false. Much of the bible is clearly metaphor and analogy to teach lessons, some, however, is factual. We could argue all day over which parts are which though since everyone will have his own opinion. Merely showing that one part of the bible isn't factually accurate though does not render the entirety of the rest factually inaccurate though. You're trying to "nit-pick" the bible in a literalist, factual way and show how strict fundamentalists who believe in the literal innerrancy of the bible are wrong to do that. I happen to agree with you on that. That doesn't mean the bible is useless though, just because it is not factually accurate in all regards. Metaphor and analogy are also proper and right, even if they rely on factual innacurrasies to make their point. I don't reject a part of the bible because it is factually in error, I accept it as teaching part of the overall lesson of the bible. You have to take things in context.

Norleans,

I noticed the two different creation stories also! I was going to mention it later to see if the paradoxes I mentioned before had anything to do with it after people had discussed the aforementioned paradoxes a little more. Turns out I didn't have to!

For those who haven't read Genesis 2, it's interesting to note that in Genesis 2, the plants were created after the sun, not before (Gen. 2:5). It is also interesting how the only plants that were created were those that were "pleasing to the eye and good to eat," (2:9) not "all according to their kinds".

From reading all your interpretations, it looks like Genesis 1, by showing how day and night can take place without the sun, was meant to show that the only use the sun had was to help with the calendar, as a way of separating the Israelite religion from the surrounding sun god cults. In ancient times, day and night was thought to be at the direct discretion of whatever divinities were worshipped; so saying the sun was the cause of day and night would be to ascribe supernatural powers to it, leading to idolatry. To put it simply, Genesis 1 is mostly a declaration of monotheism.

Perhaps "separating light from darkness" meant separating night from day, even though the original Hebrew uses "light and dark" rather than "night and day."

Genesis two is probably just a statement of the purposes of things that were mentioned in Genesis 1, but in an allegorical way, especially as they would apply to shepheards (no mention of agriculture until Cain).

What do all of you think?

Norleans,

I noticed the two different creation stories also! I was going to mention it later to see if the paradoxes I mentioned before had anything to do with it after people had discussed the aforementioned paradoxes a little more. Turns out I didn't have to!

For those who haven't read Genesis 2, it's interesting to note that in Genesis 2, the plants were created after the sun, not before (Gen. 2:5). It is also interesting how the only plants that were created were those that were "pleasing to the eye and good to eat," (2:9) not "all according to their kinds".

In my interpretation, Genesis 1, by showing how day and night can take place without the sun, was meant to show that the only use the sun had was to help with the calendar, as a way of separating the Israelite religion from the surrounding sun god cults. In ancient times, day and night was thought to be at the direct discretion of whatever divinities were worshipped; so saying the sun was the cause of day and night would be to ascribe supernatural powers to it, leading to idolatry. To put it simply, Genesis 1 is mostly a declaration of monotheism.

Genesis two is probably just a statement of the purposes of things that were mentioned in Genesis 1, but in an allegorical way, especially as they would apply to shepheards (no mention of agriculture until Cain).

What do all of you think?


I have always heard that there are two different stories in Genesis 1 and 2, but as many times as I have read them, I cannot find the different stories. All I see is the continuation of the story, with more detail surrounding what happened to Adam, his creation, the garden, etc. Where is the second story detailing the creation in Genesis 2?

Genesis 1: overview of the creation of the universe, with particular attention paid to the earth

Genesis 2: creation finished-focus shifts to details about the creation of Adam, about the garden of Eden, Adam's realization that no animal was his mate, and the creation of his wife.

think of chapter two as a summary, not as a chronological account.

First, the bible is the word of god as interpreted and transcribed by men who are obviously not perfect. Secondly, I have not admitted a "large portion of the bible is false." I merely pointed out what I see as a contradiction in the creation stories found in Genesis 1 and 2 and also stated that I don't believe the creation story of Genesis should be taken literally as some people are wont to do. In other words, I am not a "strict creationist" who believes everything happened in 7, twenty-four hour days. I don't see that as saying a large portion of the bible is false. Much of the bible is clearly metaphor and analogy to teach lessons, some, however, is factual. We could argue all day over which parts are which though since everyone will have his own opinion. Merely showing that one part of the bible isn't factually accurate though does not render the entirety of the rest factually inaccurate though. You're trying to "nit-pick" the bible in a literalist, factual way and show how strict fundamentalists who believe in the literal innerrancy of the bible are wrong to do that. I happen to agree with you on that. That doesn't mean the bible is useless though, just because it is not factually accurate in all regards. Metaphor and analogy are also proper and right, even if they rely on factual innacurrasies to make their point. I don't reject a part of the bible because it is factually in error, I accept it as teaching part of the overall lesson of the bible. You have to take things in context.
If you dont believe all of it is right, why pick and choose what you want to believe? Do you actually believe the bible, or you use it more as life blueprint?

If you dont believe all of it is right, why pick and choose what you want to believe? Do you actually believe the bible, or you use it more as life blueprint?

I believe all of it is a "life blue print" as you put it and I believe much of it to be factually accurate. A big problem with factual accuracy in the bible relates to dating things since they didn't have a calendar as such and the way years, etc. are measured have changed over time. Same with measurements, etc. Much of the old testament in particular has problems with dating of events. Also, due to the passage of time and errors in translation days, dates, times, names, locations, etc. are subject to criticism as being incorrect (for example, in the old testament, there is a decent possibility that the children of Israel in fleeing Egypt crossed the Reed Sea and not the Red Sea).

The original Hebrew, "yam soof," means "Sea of Reeds."

Thank you for all your responses. You have all helped me greatly to understand the different paradoxes in the Bible. If I come up with some more, I won't hesitate to ask you again.

Most of the old testament (esp. of the "Pentateuch", the five books of Moses) originally were myths and stories floating around when those Bible chapters were first written down. They originally had *nothing* to do with the Jewish/christian God or any other persons mentioned in those stories. When they wrote down the Bible first, they often only changed the names to what you now know as "biblical names", and also a few details here or there.
As they used all sorts of sources as they saw fit from completely different cultural backgrounds, the resulting stories had sometimes some discrepancies or things that seem illogical.

Besides that, the Bible today is quite a lot different from the Bible that was first written down. During the long time since its original creation, the biblical stories have often been totally twisted around arbitrarily changed and whatnot by whoever was in power at the Jewish, or later Christian, religion, so as to fit their own twisted purposes, just so they can say whatever they want is backed by the Bible. This of course introduced yet quite a lot more discrepancies into the stories.
So if you compare early versions (like the Dead Sea scrolls) with current versions (like the King James bible), you'll find quite a lot of discrepancies between those alone already.

Same goes for the Creation stories found in Genesis - they originally came from different cultural backgrounds (Sumerian, Assyrian and whatnot) and had been around as creation myths quite some time already before they were first written down as Biblical stories. Thus we have discrepancies that in one version man was made after the likeness of a higher being, in the other he was simply made from dust and so on.
Also with the day/night cycles - in an older Hebrew version, it was only "light" and "dark", which is nowhere near as conflicting.

So if you compare early versions (like the Dead Sea scrolls) with current versions (like the King James bible), you'll find quite a lot of discrepancies between those alone already.

They already tried that one they found two words that were different
... it was a good try though...sorry to sink your boat

Also with the day/night cycles - in an older Hebrew version, it was only "light" and "dark", which is nowhere near as conflicting.

Where did you find this out? I'd like to look it up because this is an intriguing fact you brought up!