Felstorm

This guy is amazing. He isolates himself within a theological world, that has no bearing on the real world. Then proceeds to only read theological material produced, by none other than his own sect of Christianity, and then expects us to believe that his material is coming from an entirely objective standpoint.

In fact I think I have shown that your WTBTS tells you, NOT to look at things with an objective standpoint. In fact, your society is so edgy, that other Christians won't have anything to do with you.

And I suppose, you are gonna tell me thats because they are all false religons and under the control of "Satan"? Just like me. I am under the control of Satan because I do not agree with you. And because I do not recognise your obviously superiour knowledge about the bible. Because after all the only reliable source of information for having a worldview comes from the Bible, and not just any bible, but a Bible made BY the WTBTS.

And since the WTBTS is the only reliable source of information about the bible, as it is an entirely objective veiwpoint on the bible, because, get this, it opposes all other religions and viewpoints on the bible. Which is in itself a contradiction because your society is implying that it has an entirely objective viewpoint, that which they don't want you to have. Because if you did, you'd see through their BS and think for yourself.

This is a prime example of biblical brainwash.

But I guess the word of your own society is misinformation. And I'm making stuff up when I post articles to your own publications. I have talked with JW's at lenght before, but I have never met one THIS brainwashed.

At least those other guys were open to logic and reason. This guy shuts EVERYTHING out before it even hits the proverbial doorstep.

YHWHtruth

This leads into another Mike hot air balloon, which objects that building a city "seems like a settled life" versus being a restless wanderer. OK, now, since the ground would not produce food for Cain, what would he have to do in order to get food? Keep in mind that there were no supermarkets, or even "Texaco Star Marts", in those times. Think, think, think. Yes, you got it! He would have to wander around from place to place and find it! Building a city wasn't going to keep him eating! The words used here, however, would also describe well a criminal always on the run from justice!

Mike contends that Genesis 4 contains a false prophecy. God had told Cain that he would wander restlessly on the earth: "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." Genesis 4:12

Yet, later we are told that Cain settled in his own land, which later was named Nod in his honor since Nod means "wandering". (cf. Genesis 4:16) The problem is not with Genesis, but with Mike's misreading of the biblical text. The term "earth" in this verse (´adha·mah´) is translated "ground," "soil," or "land." ´Adha·mah´ refers to (1) ground as tilled, yielding sustenance (Ge 3:23); (2) piece of ground, landed property (Ge 47:18); (3) earth as material substance, soil, dirt (Jer 14:4; 1Sa 4:12); (4) ground as earth's visible surface (Ge 1:25); (5) land, territory, country (Le 20:24); (6) whole earth, inhabited earth (Ge 12:3). ´Adha·mah´ seems to be related etymologically to the word ´a·dham´, the first man Adam having been made from the dust of the ground.-Ge 2:7.

Therefore, God was not claiming that Cain would wander aimlessly throughout the whole earth. Rather, God was indicating that Cain would be thrown out from the land in which God's visible presence dwelt. This point becomes clear from the context itself:

"Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from THE LAND, and I will be hidden FROM YOUR PRESENCE; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.' But the LORD said to him, 'Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out FROM THE LORD's PRESENCE and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden." (KJV)

Genesis 4:13-15 In light of this, the only contradiction that exists is the one imposed upon the text by Mike's critical presuppositions.

Max

mike_decock

Which still doesn't address the fact that a restless wanderer doesn't settle down and build a city unless he stops being a restless wanderer. It's that simple.

The term translated as "earth" in Genesis 4:12 is 'erets - earth, whole earth (as opposed to a part), earth (as opposed to heaven), earth (inhabitants).

"When thou tillest the ground ('adamah), it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth ('erets)."

Thefore, as the distinction between 'adamah and 'erets is made very clear in that sentence, Cain was cursed to walk aimlessly throughout the whole earth ('erets) because the ground ('adamah) would not longer yield it's strength. Your etymological 'adamah argument is nothing but a red herring.

Once again, you have clearly demonstrated your presuppositions and theological a priori arguments. Thank you for providing even more contrast to the contradiction.

-Mike...

YHWHtruth

Which still doesn't address the fact that a restless wanderer doesn't settle down and build a city unless he stops being a restless wanderer. It's that simple.

<What is simple is this: When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. Therefore your comment on "a restless wanderer doesn't settle down and build a city earns you no points.>


quote:God had told Cain that he would wander restlessly on the earth: "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." Genesis 4:12

The term "earth" in this verse (´adha·mah´) is translated "ground," "soil," or "land."


The term translated as "earth" in Genesis 4:12 is 'erets - earth, whole earth (as opposed to a part), earth (as opposed to heaven), earth (inhabitants).

<My suggestion is invest in a BADG. Look at Strong's footnote taken from the Vg Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975.) Continue reading the footnote for ´e´rets found in younger manuscrips: In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is ´e´rets. ´E´rets refers to (1) earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky (Ge 1:2); (2) land, country, territory (Ge 10:10); (3) ground, surface of the ground (Ge 1:26); (4) people of all the globe (Ge 18:25). So my argument still is valid.>

"When thou tillest the ground ('adamah), it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth ('erets)."

<Read the above comment>


quote:Therefore, God was not claiming that Cain would wander aimlessly throughout the whole earth. Rather, God was indicating that Cain would be thrown out from the land in which God's visible presence dwelt.


Thefore, as the distinction between 'adamah and 'erets is made very clear in that sentence, Cain was cursed to walk aimlessly throughout the whole earth ('erets) because the ground ('adamah) would not longer yield it's strength. Your etymological 'adamah argument is nothing but a red herring.

< For one, if you were to find me guilty of a red herring Fallacy you would have to prove that my responce was an irrelevant topic presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. > You clearly have not


quote:Genesis 4:13-15 In light of this, the only contradiction that exists is the one imposed upon the text by Mike's critical presuppositions.


Once again, you have clearly demonstrated your presuppositions and theological a priori arguments. Thank you for providing even more contrast to the contradiction.

<Also, for someone whose writings are filled with ad hominem after ad hominem, I don't think Mike is in a position to complain about alleged attacks against him, from anyone. His concept of ad hominem-free debates is well illustrated in what he writes in every single one of his contributions to this discussion. If the reader would like me to point to a number of examples where this is the case, please send me an email. Otherwise, I am confident you will meet with quite a few examples above. As it is, I am not interested in playing the ad hominem game with Mike. I will instead try to deal with the important issues, and his attempts to justify his faulty analyses and conclusions. This does not mean that I will be easy on him when he commits what I consider unacceptable errors in relation to what I wrote, or in his handling of the Bible text. I will not hold back from calling things as I see them.>

Max

Felstorm

After reading this I don't even think you know what an ad hominem is, let alone know how to identify one when you see it.

You call it as you see it all you like. But if you are wrong that still makes you wrong.

mike_decock

'Adamah obviously refers to the ground. Even though 'erets can be rendered as ground, it is used in contrast with 'adamah to imply "earth" (as in country, territory). This is obvious to anyone who isn't determined to find a semantic loophole to avoid admitting that Yahweh's words failed to come true.

Your etymological analysis of 'adamah (which wasn't even the word in question) was irrelevent. The "ground" vs. "earth" distinction in the English translations adequately reflect the distinction in the Hebrew text.

You are free to discontinue your "hot air balloon" comments anytime you please.

-Mike...

mike_decock

This argument falls flat in light of Genesis 3:22:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Clearly Adam did not fall "From immortality to mortality". The tree of life would have given him immortality which he did not have. This is clearly stated in the text.

Also note what the serpent told eve:

Genesis 3
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent told the truth. He said they wouldn't die, and that they would "be as gods". When they ate, they didn't die and they did "become as one of us" (gods).

-Mike...

Jack the Bodiless

Genesis 3:22-23 is pretty devastating to the Christian interpretation of Genesis. Not just because of the Tree of Life, but also because of the following word:
God threw them out because he was afraid: afraid of them becoming rival gods.

That's why he lied. He lied in an attempt to stop them becoming too powerful. It's directly equivalent to the Prometheus myth, where Zeus did not intend humans to have fire.

No need to read any other meanings into it, this was obviously what the author intended all along.

This God was never intended to be a likeable character: he was to be feared, not loved. There is no reason to assume that the Genesis god wouldn't lie.

CJD

Funny, Jack, that the Tanak contains no Hebrew equivalent to the word "therefore" (instead starting with vay shal khe hu—"and he sent him"). I suppose that if one wanted to read the text in the manner you have, then it can be misconstrued that way.

It was not fear that motivated God in sending the two out of the garden. It was his holiness: God is seen here cleansing his temple-garden (cf. Luke 10:18; John 2:12–17; Rev. 21:27). Only one committed to reducing the God of Israel to a wooden stump would come away with your synopsis.

I daresay it is your very assumption that God is supposed to be warm and fuzzy that has led in part to your disdain of him.

Regards,

CJD

Jack the Bodiless

That is still the most reasonable way of reading it IMO. How does the phrase translated in the KJV as "lest he put forth his hand" appear in Hebrew? This also strongly indicates that Adam and Eve were kicked out specifically to stop them getting more power.
Why are you quoting Luke, John, and Revelation? What relevance do these books have to Genesis? None!

The God of Genesis isn't the God of the NT. And, no, it wasn't God's "holiness": there is no indication of that in the text (of Genesis).

No Biblical book should require "clarification" by a later book. That would make it wrong for centuries, until the later book was written!