The bible - can any non retards make sense of that shit?

[Simon Viavant]

First, what theological objections to the garden of Eden story? I have heard many secular objections and many differing theological interpretations of what the garden's intent was. But I am not entirely certain where you were going with your statement so before I attempt to answer, I thought it best to ask especially since we are no longer being brief

Second, the tree of life/knowledge was a tree that was not so much about the tree as much about obedience. God could have chosen to have them not eat the Corn Stalks of Life, but that is not what God happened to choose. The point was that God had given them and infinitely beautiful place with basically an infinite choice of things to eat from and only one to not eat from. It is a boundary that God set just like any good parent would set, and while Adam and Eve were formed as adults they were basically like children in that they were just made and new. So, God set a boundary and at the first test they blew it. This is what the tree was about and not so much about the tree itself.

They didn't know the difference between good and evil until they ate the fruit. So they wouldn't have known that disobeying god is evil. Yes, a good parent sets a boundary, and they don't throw their kid out on the streets when they break the boundary.

4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails
- 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a

Think about our world today with disposable marriages and see if God's idea of love stated here matches with our idea of love. It doesn't, but then think of what it would be like if people really got a hold of this kind of love because it is available. Think about what would happen to marriages where the spouses were loving in a way that they bore all things, believe all things about each other, hoped all things about each other, did not provoke each other, did not seek their own, did not act unbecomingly, were patient and kind and never failed each other. They would certain never get divorced and it would like a honeymoon everyday of their married life. But in our world, we have moved away from God's ideas of things long ago and yet now we want to apply our "new" terms of love and justice and even holiness to God who is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and then we don't understand why things don't add up. So, this is why you can look at God being benevolent and not see it because our ideas of what justice and compassion and love are have gotten off from the true meanings and we need only go back to the source, God, to find them again. Just look at love as our example.

If love was like that, nobody would ever fall in love, because every exchange would be completely boring with nothing interesting happening. And if your spouse if a total asshole and is abusive, they should lose your love, you shouldn't be obligated to keep loving them.

Sixth, which brings me to the importance of what actually happened when they made that fatefull decision. God gave humanity the earth to rule over giving us dominion (Genesis 1:26). The catch, so to speak, was that it was a contract that we had with God to oversee his creation and rule over it. When the devil came in and deceived Adam and Eve, they choose to follow the devil instead of God and therefore entered into a covenant and contract with the devil to give him rulership of the humanity and therefore the earth causing humanity to share in his death, or eternal damnation (Romans 5:12-15, Romans 6:1-20). Therefore, much more happened in the garden that day then they just took a cookie from the cookie jar. This caused God to have to expell them from the garden and have to have a full plan of redemption to win back humanity and buy back the contract from the devil. This is what Jesus did on the cross because without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). However, God also requires that the one whose blood is shed be spotless (Deuteronomy 17:1) and we, who need the redemption, are not spotless. This is why Jesus had to be born they way he was (mentioned in earlier post) and live a life without sin so that he could go to the cross and pay the price on our heads and buy the contract back from the devil for humanity and the earth. This is why the Bible declares that all authority was return to Jesus (Matthew 28:18). It was not a failure of God, but a loving allowance of God to let us have our choice and then God's awesome plan to redeem us from the mistake of our choice.

I thought that was how he was different from other gods, that he didn't require blood sacrifice to appease his wrath like other gods do. Especially blood sacrifice by an innocent bystander. From your above post:

-5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails-

And yet every baby is born sinful when they haven't even taken their first breath. God says you should love people unconditionally even when you know nothing about them, but every baby is born sinful. Yes, god will know what their life is life, but there are babies who have died before they could commit a sin and god judges them to be sinful right when they are born. And god said love shouldn't seek it's own, yet he seeks ours when he loves us and severely punishes us if we don't love him.

It is the same with God. Three parts, yet one God. But yes, I totally believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is part of the Trinity.

So god is emo and has to hurt himself to redeem for the shortcomings of those he loves?

First, and I have touched upon this already, Jesus' virgin birth separated him being under the covenant that Adam and Eve made with the devil when they sold out to him in the garden because the Holy Spirit of God overshadowed Mary when she became pregnant (Luke 1:34-35). Yes, this takes faith to believe and yes this is possible because I remind you that:

37 For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment.
- Luke 1:37

So, nothing is impossible with God and having a virgin become pregnant is possible. Yes, again, it takes faith, but then the Bible does tell us that by faith we believe (2 Corinthians 5:7). But that special virgin birth separated Jesus and had him not under the covenant with the devil and allowed him to be an offering. Why was this necessary, because as stated, the garden affair was more then just a cookie from the cookie jar, it was the loss of our rulership to the devil. To gain this back, Jesus had to come the way he did and live a sin free life and go to the cross as a lamb without blemish or spot. Why? Because the terms of the contract we made with the devil required a high price to be paid for us to be bought back and this was the price. You say that God's actions are all askew because you think he operated incorrectly but I think your assumptions are wrong. God created man and gave him free will and dominion. Man sold our birthright and dominion to the devil. The devil then demanded a high price to be paid to get us back. It was not God who demanded this price, he was just the one who paid it to get us back. It was the only way to do it without overriding and violating his word and integrity. This is why God had Jesus born of a virgin so he was not under that contract and sent him to the cross so that the debt could be paid. And look at what the Bible tells us that Jesus went through for us and sit and watch "The Passion of the Christ" movie and get an idea and he did this because this was the demanded price to be paid to get us back and God paid it for us with his own blood. We really shouldn't be mocking him but praising him and running to him. Honestly!

Again, when we made this supposed contract with Satan we had no knowledge of good and evil, and yet god holds us accountable for it.

Also, above you mentioned it had a "figurative meaning" in places. This is a defense I have seen Christians frequently use, and it doesn't really hold much weight as it can be interpreted any way and Christians usually twist it to be the most logical and uncontradictory meaning possible. You could say atheists twist it to be the most illogical, but that's why intelligent atheists usually don't use figurative meanings and just interpret it literally.


Your other posts were mostly pretty similar to the ones I have responded to, so I didn't think I needed to repeat myself.

[got tonkaed]

JH - just wanted to let you know that i have seen your post. Im going to be gone for the rest of the evening and what would be most of tomorrow morning (assuming you are in America) Ill attempt to get to the post around sunday afternoonish (in your time)

[PopeBenXVI]

First Jester...I love to read theology but man I skipped most of your encyclical. I am sure I have read it before so not a big deal and thank you for your words on our Sacred Scriptures.

Comic, I guess the Book I have on my shelf called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls" is just an Illusion? I had no idea that I could hold and read the English translation of some of the Dead sea scrolls in a paperback? I thought I had to break into the Vatican and read the pieces as the Church was keeping it from me. Better tell the Pope I have one and that I am stealing his identity too!

I know their is a lot of scrolls and honestly I don't know if they are still translating more but the book you say does not exist apparently does.......I guess I have the only copy then.

[PopeBenXVI]

I should clarrify my comment on the book is for Skittles. Old Popes don't type too well

[PopeBenXVI]

Skittles...what else is the church keeping from us that I have in my bookshelf collection?

[jesterhawk]

JH - just wanted to let you know that i have seen your post. Im going to be gone for the rest of the evening and what would be most of tomorrow morning (assuming you are in America) Ill attempt to get to the post around sunday afternoonish (in your time)

Ok, cool. When you get the chance.

JH

[comic boy]

First Jester...I love to read theology but man I skipped most of your encyclical. I am sure I have read it before so not a big deal and thank you for your words on our Sacred Scriptures.

Comic, I guess the Book I have on my shelf called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls" is just an Illusion? I had no idea that I could hold and read the English translation of some of the Dead sea scrolls in a paperback? I thought I had to break into the Vatican and read the pieces as the Church was keeping it from me. Better tell the Pope I have one and that I am stealing his identity too!

I know their is a lot of scrolls and honestly I don't know if they are still translating more but the book you say does not exist apparently does.......I guess I have the only copy then.

Yes my error, that seems to be a good collection of the majority of translated scrolls.
Now as you have read them all why do you think there is no mention of Jesus ?

[Gregrios]

First Jester...I love to read theology but man I skipped most of your encyclical. I am sure I have read it before so not a big deal and thank you for your words on our Sacred Scriptures.

Comic, I guess the Book I have on my shelf called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls" is just an Illusion? I had no idea that I could hold and read the English translation of some of the Dead sea scrolls in a paperback? I thought I had to break into the Vatican and read the pieces as the Church was keeping it from me. Better tell the Pope I have one and that I am stealing his identity too!

I know their is a lot of scrolls and honestly I don't know if they are still translating more but the book you say does not exist apparently does.......I guess I have the only copy then.

Yes my error, that seems to be a good collection of the majority of translated scrolls.
Now as you have read them all why do you think there is no mention of Jesus ?

....because they're from the old testament, duh.

[comic boy]

First Jester...I love to read theology but man I skipped most of your encyclical. I am sure I have read it before so not a big deal and thank you for your words on our Sacred Scriptures.

Comic, I guess the Book I have on my shelf called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls" is just an Illusion? I had no idea that I could hold and read the English translation of some of the Dead sea scrolls in a paperback? I thought I had to break into the Vatican and read the pieces as the Church was keeping it from me. Better tell the Pope I have one and that I am stealing his identity too!

I know their is a lot of scrolls and honestly I don't know if they are still translating more but the book you say does not exist apparently does.......I guess I have the only copy then.

Yes my error, that seems to be a good collection of the majority of translated scrolls.
Now as you have read them all why do you think there is no mention of Jesus ?

....because they're from the old testament, duh.

Read up on the subject, note the period that many of them were written, then come back and humble yourself

[b.k. barunt]

So there's one bit of the biblke that doesn't mean what it says...

It means exactly what it says - that Babylon was so evil, even the killing of her children was sanctioned by God. God deals with evil the same way our white blood cells deal with impurities that are harmful to us. It is not, however, ok for man to take it upon himself to judge who is to die, hence the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. No inconsistency there, it is for God, not man, to decide who lives or dies. When God commanded the Israelites to wipe out an evil nation, their killing was in response to His commandment, and did not violate the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. If someone got angry with a neighbor because his dog pissed in their yard, and killed him, that would be violating the commandment. Is it really that hard to see the difference?

[comic boy]

So there's one bit of the biblke that doesn't mean what it says...

It means exactly what it says - that Babylon was so evil, even the killing of her children was sanctioned by God. God deals with evil the same way our white blood cells deal with impurities that are harmful to us. It is not, however, ok for man to take it upon himself to judge who is to die, hence the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. No inconsistency there, it is for God, not man, to decide who lives or dies. When God commanded the Israelites to wipe out an evil nation, their killing was in response to His commandment, and did not violate the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. If someone got angry with a neighbor because his dog pissed in their yard, and killed him, that would be violating the commandment. Is it really that hard to see the difference?

Yawn
Another one with a hotline to the thoughts of God !

[b.k. barunt]

Yeah yeah, you've been giving me a hard time since i told you that He said you are very gay. Go figure.


Honibaz

[comic boy]

Yeah yeah, you've been giving me a hard time since i told you that He said you are very gay. Go figure.


Honibaz

Childish insults from a grown man ....Go figure !

[PLAYER57832]

First, what theological objections to the garden of Eden story? I have heard many secular objections and many differing theological interpretations of what the garden's intent was. But I am not entirely certain where you were going with your statement so before I attempt to answer, I thought it best to ask especially since we are no longer being brief

Second, the tree of life/knowledge was a tree that was not so much about the tree as much about obedience. God could have chosen to have them not eat the Corn Stalks of Life, but that is not what God happened to choose. The point was that God had given them and infinitely beautiful place with basically an infinite choice of things to eat from and only one to not eat from. It is a boundary that God set just like any good parent would set, and while Adam and Eve were formed as adults they were basically like children in that they were just made and new. So, God set a boundary and at the first test they blew it. This is what the tree was about and not so much about the tree itself.

They didn't know the difference between good and evil until they ate the fruit. So they wouldn't have known that disobeying god is evil. Yes, a good parent sets a boundary, and they don't throw their kid out on the streets when they break the boundary.

This is theologically a point of contention. My church says that they knew that God had commanded them not to eat of that tree. They did not, however, have full knowledge of the breadth of sin and mankind did not therefore come onto judgement until then. Once they gained the knowledge, then they became subject to the consequences of sins. Or, by some understandings, they were not capable of sinning until they partook of the apple.

Another group feels that the entire episode is really and allegory for mankind leaving the hunting and gathering lifestyle and entering into agriculture.

Also, above you mentioned it had a "figurative meaning" in places. This is a defense I have seen Christians frequently use, and it doesn't really hold much weight as it can be interpreted any way and Christians usually twist it to be the most logical and uncontradictory meaning possible. You could say atheists twist it to be the most illogical, but that's why intelligent atheists usually don't use figurative meanings and just interpret it literally.

I skipped to this part because I disagree with many of the other answers.

If all you want to do is poke holes in the Bible, you will find plenty of fodder. How can one book possibly explain all of God, all that mankind needs to know in one little book? Each human does not need the same thing.

But, just like a parent may get music lessons for one child and send another to basketball, may tell one child to go to bed at 8 and let another stay up to 9 because that is what each child needs, so, too must God answer to everyone. You can argue that music lessons cost more, that it is "not fair" that one child gets to stay up and another does not (they certainly will! ). OR, you can see that the parent is trying to meet each child's needs the best they can. In some cases, the need of one child may be far greater than another child's -- be it severe handicaps or extreme giftedness. What then?

And while you like to dismiss the argument as "irrelevant", God is much greater in all ways than us. So, any parenting analogy is just a partial glimpse, not a full understanding.

First Jester...I love to read theology but man I skipped most of your encyclical. I am sure I have read it before so not a big deal and thank you for your words on our Sacred Scriptures.

Comic, I guess the Book I have on my shelf called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls" is just an Illusion? I had no idea that I could hold and read the English translation of some of the Dead sea scrolls in a paperback? I thought I had to break into the Vatican and read the pieces as the Church was keeping it from me. Better tell the Pope I have one and that I am stealing his identity too!

I know their is a lot of scrolls and honestly I don't know if they are still translating more but the book you say does not exist apparently does.......I guess I have the only copy then.

Yes my error, that seems to be a good collection of the majority of translated scrolls.
Now as you have read them all why do you think there is no mention of Jesus ?

....because they're from the old testament, duh.

No. They came after the Old Testament. There is debate over when, exactly they date and who wrote them. Some say they came from the Essenes, a group most say was present at the time of Christ and who some believe influenced Christ (or the reverse...).

Much of the scrolls have not been translated. Some may actually disagree with standard Judaism, though say that is not clear. I understand that a full version was recently put on line to assist in the translation effort, but I am not sure that it is available to the general public yet.

So there's one bit of the biblke that doesn't mean what it says...

It means exactly what it says - that Babylon was so evil, even the killing of her children was sanctioned by God. God deals with evil the same way our white blood cells deal with impurities that are harmful to us. It is not, however, ok for man to take it upon himself to judge who is to die, hence the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. No inconsistency there, it is for God, not man, to decide who lives or dies. When God commanded the Israelites to wipe out an evil nation, their killing was in response to His commandment, and did not violate the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. If someone got angry with a neighbor because his dog pissed in their yard, and killed him, that would be violating the commandment. Is it really that hard to see the difference?

Remember, too, that the Jewish version is "thou shalt not murder" .. rather than :thou shalt not kill". Adn that is a HUGE differance!

[Gregrios]

I looked it up and roughly 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in fact writings of the Old Testament. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[PopeBenXVI]

From what I have found there seems to be a new version of the book that comes out every year and they are still translating some. I also can not admit to have read it all. I tend to get a book and read sections of it and then move to the next book. All my books have 1-5 bookmarks in them so in regards to Jesus not being mentioned I can not comment other than to agree that they are old Testement era writtings.

Also portions of the disputed books are in the Dead Sea scrolls. Maccabees, Parts of Danial and I believe I read one more. That is a problem for some protestants who say their was never a Hebrew version of some of those 7 books as they use that as a reason to take them out of the Bible.

Anyway, I forgot what we were even talking about in the begining of this tread?

[PLAYER57832]

I looked it up and roughly 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in fact writings of the Old Testament. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't dispute that a large part of it is Old Testament at all. (don't know the percentage or even how much of the total has even been translated)

However, the date is debated, the origins are debated. Essenes have been mentioned as possible creators... but many say differantly I believe that though the official reason the scrolls were put online was to help with the translations, it was also because so many Christians and non Orthodox Jews were frustrated by limited access.

[Gregrios]

I looked it up and roughly 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in fact writings of the Old Testament. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't dispute that a large part of it is Old Testament at all. (don't know the percentage or even how much of the total has even been translated)

However, the date is debated, the origins are debated. Essenes have been mentioned as possible creators... but many say differantly I believe that though the official reason the scrolls were put online was to help with the translations, it was also because so many Christians and non Orthodox Jews were frustrated by limited access.

Ok. I get what you're saying now.

The debate from what I read mainly stems from a major delay from the time of discovery to the time of translation or something to that effect. I don't remember exactly but it was quite a number of years within this time span.

[joecoolfrog]

I looked it up and roughly 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in fact writings of the Old Testament. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Yes many of the manuscripts are copies of earlier writings but were actually copied between approx 200 BC and 70 AD which firmly places the scribes in the correct time scale.
I spent a year in Israel when I was younger and spent time in Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem.Jerusalem
and the area of the Dead Sea where these items were discovered, it is geographically an extremely small body of land.
The group of people who most historians feel likely to have written the scrolls were the Essenes, these were a messianic sect who were at odds with the Judaic establishment. Hence they would have had great interest in somebody both claiming to the chosen one and
who was attempting to overthrow the established order.
So we have the right time,the right place and a sizeable motive , the question of why Jesus is not mentioned in the scrolls is extremely valid I should say.

[Gregrios]

I don't see the validity. If it were NT writings that didn't mention Jesus then I would understand but where it's from the OT, this line of thinking just doesn't make sense. Unless I'm missing something.

[comic boy]

I don't see the validity. If it were NT writings that didn't mention Jesus then I would understand but where it's from the OT, this line of thinking just doesn't make sense. Unless I'm missing something.

The scrolls are 80% concerned with established Judaic texts ( the foundations of the OT ) but 20% are concerned with contemporary matters such as the beliefs of the sect, rules and regulations. It is these contemporary writings that are of interest because the arrival of the Messiah would have had a profound effect , if one spends their life waiting for somebody they are unlikely to keep quiet when he shows up. Remember that the Essenes were a messianic sect so were driven primarily by the desire to follow Gods chosen one, nothing would have been more important than the arrival of Jesus.
So why is there no mention of him, lets speculate ;

1) The Essenes did acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah but chose not to document the most important thing in their lives.
2) They did document him fully but for some reason these documents all dissapeared and were not included in the New Testament ( oddly enough nor are the Essenes which seems strange)
3) They simply never came across him, or if they did then not in the guise of a Messiah.
4) There were many false prophets, perhaps they simply dismissed the claim.

I could go on and on , there might be perfectly good reasons why Jesus is not mentioned or the opposite may be true, if anybody knows the answer they are not telling thats for sure.
What is certain is that these manuscripts are the most comprehensive collection of historical documents from the period in question, nobody has edited them to achieve a particular purpose. They have been instrumental in showing that the bulk of the Old Testament has been preserved as an accurate record of belief at the time, as for the New Testament they add nothing by way of credibility.
A wiser man then me once remarked that it is not the words of the New Testament that are important but the overall message, at the end of the day does something have to be ordained by God to make it right ?

[Backglass]

It continues to amaze me how people can have such serious, in-depth arguments about what is essentially myth, legend and lore. It's like writing paragraphs of detailed points arguing whether Superman or Batman would win in a fistfight.

Do you think the human race will ever evolve to a point where such superstitions are no longer necessary for survival?

[Dancing Mustard]

It continues to amaze me how people can have such serious, in-depth arguments about what is essentially myth, legend and lore. It's like writing paragraphs of detailed points arguing whether Superman or Batman would win in a fistfight.

With preperation time, Batman.

Without, Superman.




Oh, who am I kidding... Superman every time. Screw you, Batfans.

[InkL0sed]

To answer the question in the original post: yes, but I choose not to.

[Snorri1234]

It continues to amaze me how people can have such serious, in-depth arguments about what is essentially myth, legend and lore. It's like writing paragraphs of detailed points arguing whether Superman or Batman would win in a fistfight.

With preperation time, Batman.

Without, Superman.




Oh, who am I kidding... Superman every time. Screw you, Batfans.

Well considering the apparant amount of kryptonite in the world, so much that every small-time crook can lay his hands on loads of it, it amazes me that Superman is still alive. Especially because he doesn't seem to have any clue how to use his powers. (Like all superheroes.)