TheDiddleyMan

How so? Why isn't it possible that "calling on the name of the Lord" is not meant to be taken as mere lip service, and that Paul is assuming those who would call on the Lord mean it? For Paul to say that one only need to "call on the Lord" by saying certain words would go against what he taught all throughout the book of Romans.

Do you really believe he is that dumb? No, I think you are really reaching to prove your belief that the bible is false (a sentiment I share, btw)....


Kevin

Amlodhi

Well, technically, we're all trusting man. Your personal beliefs notwithstanding, it is an indisputable and physical fact that you don't know what Jesus did or did not say. You have a translated rescension of a text which purports to record what some man said that Jesus (or God) said.

I know, it sounds better when you leave out the middlemen.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Magus55

Um, If you are descended from Noah, you are descended from Adam since they are related.

Magus55

why not, everyone else does?

I never said I can prove to others that my beliefs are correct, but I am quite convinced that Judeo-Christianity is correct, based on evidence that while you may find a joke or unconvincing, I don't.

Magus55

Thank you Diddley. I appreciate your views, that critics try so hard to disprove the Bible, that they will blatantly throw anything out, whether it actually is valid or not. I seriously doubt the authors of the Bible were as dumb as many critics like to make them out to be. Thats why reading in context is so important. If in one verse, Paul says to call on the Lord to be saved, and then in another, explains what it really means to call on Lord, its not a contradiction, its a just a failure to use reading skills by the critic.

Godless Wonder

Yeah, I know the story. I was just commenting that if you're going to speculate that the evidence science gives that there was a single person who at some point in the past was our most recent single common matrilineal ancestor maps onto Biblical accounts, then it seems this most recent single ancestor ought to mapped to Noah's family as the genetic choke point, not all the way back to Adam and Eve, shouldn't it? (Provided you buy the flood story, of course.) Science puts the "mitochondrial Eve" (Noah's wife) at 200,000 years ago, unless Google leads me astray.

Kosh

Moderator(s), please replace the irony meter for this forum, it seems to have been overloaded recently!

Paul5204

Mr. Watchmaker:

There is no contradiction in that material comprising Genesis 1-3. From Genesis 1:1 to that verse of Genesis 2 that first combines YHWH and 'elohim is the broad outline of how we came to be and just Who is ultimately in charge. From there until the end of Chapter 3, we are told why any of that is important. And by the way, when the Torah uses the word 'elohim, it is describing God in a manner that even a pagan could and would understand, i.e, God's divinity and power. When the Torah uses the Name, the Torah is describing the Divine according to that certain Jewish conception of Deity.

Something else that would be wise to keep in mind is that the Hebrew does not have/use English verb tenses. Verbs are expressed as completed action, action not yet complete, and the imperative. To illustrate, you no doubt have a problem with the fact that Genesis 1 describes all other animals being made before man, while Genesis 2 seemingly implies [from an English reader's perspective] that man was made before all other animals. Only problem with that last is that when the English text reports that God MADE ['asah] the animals and brought them to the man, the form of 'asah used is the form of completed action, so the text is not saying that God said, Gee that man is lonely so I had better make some animals and bring them to him for company. Instead, the text is saying that at some time in the past [whether a minute or millions of years prior is for you to decide] God made some animals and after having done so, brought them to the man to see what he would call to them.

And if you notice, when God first addresses the man and woman together, there is no prohibition re eating. That is because that event occurred subsequent to the fall in the garden. No need to prohibit eating from the tree of the knowledge of tov and ra' as both the man and the woman now have that knowledge. As concerns the tree of life, that flaming cherubim was/is preventing their access so no need to prohibit what was once allowable. Now for the astute among you [I am not discluding (sic) you], but for the astute among you, you are now wondering just how that squares with the recitation that all was very good, and how could that be given the fallen state of man? Simple. Fallen man needs a savior and since that was the plan, everything is proceeding according to plan and is accordingly very good.

Which brings me to my next point, the usual translation of the Hebrew being "it is not good for ha'adam to be alone...." The only problem with that translation is that according to the text, there is no other human living. While you and I would no doubt be lonely living in a world by ourselves, that may only be because before we knew who, what and where we were, we were being, say, breast-fed and handled by other humans. But not for this man, at least according to the story. A perfectably acceptable translation was provided by the late George Ricker Berry, who renders the Hebrew in question: Not good is being the man to his separation..... There is only one other being that the man could truly have become separated from....God. Separation is otherwise an interesting concept, especially for Christians, as Christian redemption rather strongly suggests a reconciliation with God. Presumably, we would need to have some degree of separation prior to our reconciliation [else why the need for reconciliation].

In line with all this, why is this new, or more correctly, second human, a biological female? Wouldn't a male have done? Sure, heterosexual sex would be a no-go, but you, I and ha'adam wouldn't die of loneliness. My friends familiar with all things literary would call it an instance of foreshadowing. Someone is apparently going to die, and will need to reproduce in order to prevent human extinction. As I am sure you can guess, long before we get to one man's thoughts re eating from a certain tree, we should have known that that man was in some serious trouble....so serious that the Torah describes him as being separated from God, and so separated from God that he will be dying soon, so God has to bring into existence the human female in order to ensure the continued existence of humanity.

And for our confirmation, simply consult any Bible commentary. Therein, you will find that the standard intrepretation is that God called to the light, day, in order to stake his claim to ownership. That man? This at last is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man [my friends at the JPS compare that verse with Genesis 4, and note that she was taken out of man so that a man could be taken out of her/Genesis 2 otherwise makes the point rather plain with the editorial comment following the man's "exclamation", i.e., And for that reason [because she was taken out of man], a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined [in sexual relations] with his wife and the two shall become for flesh one [that child over there, and again, she was indeed taken out of man so that a man could be taken out of her, which, again, is why she is biologically female and not another male]].

In any event, the man called her woman and accordingly staked his claim to ownership. Did he have permission to do so? NO, he did not. Compare the verse prior re the animals and you will find that the purpose is expressly stated, i.e., God made the animals and then BROUGHT THEM TO THE MAN TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL TO THEM, i.e., the expressly stated purpose of God bringing the animals to the man was to see what the man would call them. But note that with respect to the woman, the text simply states that God made the woman and brought her to the man, and says nothing whatsover about God doing so to see what he would call to her, as again, that would have implied his ownership of her [for confirmation, consider Genesis 1 and God's giving dominion JOINTLY to the man and the woman].

On a semi-related note, far too many commentators also report that ha'adam blamed the woman for his failure to heed the divine command. Not so. If the man were simply blaming the woman, all he need say is, the woman gave to me and I ate. But he didn't. He blamed God instead....the woman you gave to me, she gave me of the fruit and I ate....so it's your fault God because you're the one who gave her to me. And to make matters worse, or more correctly, to conform what I wrote above about his claim to ownership of her, please note the "gave." The woman you gave to me....last time I checked, before I can give you to someone else, you need to be considered my property. Just like that fruit. Which is why a form of the Hebrew natan is used both with respect to God's having "gave" the woman and the woman's having "gave" the fruit to the man.

And you've heard commentators say that the man was holy and everything was perfect before he disobeyed. If so, then please explain why he disobeyed? Last time I checked, most of our conscious actions are the product of our desires/thoughts, so his sin was the product of his being a sinner [referred to as his being naked, and to demonstrate his spiritual ignorance, or lack of the knowledge of tov and ra', he was not ashamed of his nakedness].

Which brings us to our next item, that command. According to that other Paul, that command was to life. But how can that be since the punishment for disobedience was death? Simple. That man was a sinner and the command was for his protection, and not for his punishment or to test his loyalty to God. Compare the story of what happens when the spies return from Canaan. Owing to their unbelief, almost all were to become carcasses rotting in that great and terrible wilderness. But not Joshua and Caleb. But more importantly for our purposes, also not for the infants and little ones. Why? As stated in the Torah....and your infants and little ones WHO DO NOT YET KNOW TOV AND RA', who you said would taken as war booty, they shall go in [to heaven], to them I will give it [heaven], and they shall possess it [heaven] [and dare I say that "pagan babies" go to heaven]. So, as we can see, the children of all those whose carcasses were to rot in that wilderness went in, and they went in precisely because they did not know tov and ra'. And for the crucial point, as any behavioral scientist knows, when parents are openly in fear, their children are more so. So when the story reports that every man was weeping at the door of his tent, picture the kids weeping alongside. But they go in because they don't know tov and ra.' So that command in the garden was indeed to life, i.e., to save that man from the consequences of his being a sinner, since as long as he didn't come to know tov and ra', he could stay in the garden and God would take no offense. To put the matter in more present day terms, picture you telling your child, don't touch the hot stove, for in the day of your touching the hot stove, you will get burnt. If your child disobeys and touches that hot stove, are you going to say that you intended the burn to your child as her/his punishment? Hardly. The same here [as more fully explained shortly].

And the man's actual disobedience? You should be able to guess. He blamed God. Remember, he ate and realized that he was naked, i.e., a sinner. Instead of doing what the Torah later explicity requires [see Leviticus 4], i.e., repent, he blamed God. For the life of me, I will never understand why my friends at the JPS write that the whole idea of repentance is absent from the book of Genesis. Hardly. That man gained the knowledge of tov and ra' and thus had the moral understanding of the nature of his failure to listen, but instead of acknowledging his failure and asking for forgiveness......and then he was given the proverbial boot.

And even that was for/to his life. As the prophet Ezekiel would later write, the nefesh that sins shall die. Genesis 2:7 makes it plain that a nefesh chayyah = 1 ha'adam from min-ha'adamah [body from the ground] + 1 nishmat chayyim [breath of life] [a freebie, where is your life? chay is the Hebrew noun/verb for life/living, so where is your life, in that body or in that spirit?][one more freebie, since that breath of life was not made of existing materials already subject to decay and death, but was instead breathed in from the outside (as it were), it is imperishable]. But getting back to where we were, to kill a nefesh chayyah, one need only kill the body. And better your body dies than both your body and your unrepentant spirit live forever. Just ask the adversary, who has no body to shed/die. No hope for that one. And since God didn't want that man to be in the same position as the adversary [i.e., him with an immortal body after eating from the tree of life and a unrepentant fallen spirit to complete the package], God barred access to the tree of life.

God's mercy both with respect to the tree of the knowledge of tov and ra' and the tree of life should come as no surprise, as that is that One's Name....the Eternal, the Eternal, a God compassionate and gracious.....you can read the other twelve [thirteen, if we include the one we'd all like to forget] "attributes" for yourself.

Sorry for the rather long Torah lesson, but to speak of obvious contradictions when you don't have a clue is, well, I had better not say. And please don't get upset, as my intent is not to dehumanize you.

Kosh

Boy, the fundies are just falling out the tree in this thread!

May I recommend some good science courses? I think they even have those in Hawaii....

Paul5204

Kosh:

Excuse me, but I often find that people who apply labels do so because they have no reasoned position to argue [as Cicero said, translated into English of course, when you have no defense attack the plaintiff]. To call me a "fundie/fundy" is otherwise laughable as my interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is hardly the fundamentalist position with respect to the interpretation of that material, as even the faintest familiarity with bible commentaries would reveal.

And did I ever say the story was literal? It doesn't have to be for the story to have meaning for humans, witness Aesop's Fables to take just one example. All I was doing was responding to the claim of contradiction, a claim made by someone who simply understands next to none of the material that he/she purports to find in contradiction.

You might otherwise wish to explain just how it came to be that despite the math [as it were], that life came into being at apparently the earliest possible moment. You might also wish to explain why the math has never changed and why all of your macro-evolutionary biologist friends NEVER confront that math problem. The best we get is "matter endowed with special properties." Cute. Is that special property, God? And never mind that with your science, read macro-evolutionary thinking, you have no explanation for why no new phyla have come into existence since the Cambrian explosion. I could point you to Genesis 1 and those swarms of souls living, but you would just call me a "fundie/fundy" so why bother.

P.S. Pity that we couldn't live for 3.7 billion years. Maybe then when your lab created amino acids have never linked to form a protein, we could once and for all relegate your theory of macro-evolution to the trash heap wherein it belongs. Your macro-evolutionary science otherwise fits the fossil record about as well as you think that Genesis fits that same record. And if I may borrow from Gerald Schroeder, nice to see that exhibit in the museum, but the horse is still a horse, the dog still a dog, etc., which is again to say that your theory of macro-evolution does not fit the fossil record. So one might very well call you a "fundie/fundy" as your beliefs are just as much a matter of faith as are mine. But at least my beliefs posit the unexplainable, as after all, just how are us circles and squares living in our two dimensional world ever to "deduce" [love that word that appears to be a favorite here] or appreciate the sphere and the cube for what they are [as by definition, it would be impossible, unless of course, we were taken up into that third heaven, and never mind whether we were in the body or not at the time].