Fair enough spider, just let it go then alright. I will debate but thats it. I have no desire to discuss those kinds of issues with you. You are who you are and I am who I am. No conversion, no insults. Thats it.

No one really one guys, it was a foolish thing to begin with in my opinion. The only reason i even got involved if you look at my post is there were things that do not make sense to me - i was looking for answers that scripture could decide upon and not outside sources.

If scripture could be answered within scripture without any outside influence of other mans writings then if the answers were conclusive i would have accepted them and moved on to the next question.

What i did not take into consideration was that each person reading even with in the book tends to end up with a personal meaning of verse after verse. Then one stands on that which he feels god has shown them as long as it does not go against any other verses or concepts held as core truths to those who believe.

I agree with spider, that it is a personal thing for each believer, that it is not something that can be debated on an open forum amongst pagan and christian without retaliation arising of some sort, and hard feelings had by some or many, which should ought not be.

I will be happy to not go on with my questions - i already have my own answers, i have no wish to tear others faith apart or make them of no repute, what is truth to some here is not to me, or Abra, or JB, or Krimsa, or V, or Belushi, or Redy and others. Every one that has been here for a while knows that, we will not change each others minds or accusations, or arguments.

You all can continue if you desire, do as you wish, but even the questions i raised i would rather ask someone else than those here if that is ever my aim. There are way to many questions i have that can ever be answered in my opinion by anyone less than god/Jesus themselves. And that just ain't gonna happen here or elsewhere.

To ask for definites or absolute truths >>of mankind, from mankind<< is like asking your car to diagnose your neighbors car - doesn't work, never will. one day we will all know, til then keep an open mind and search til you find what suits you as to happiness, contentment, and above all - love.

Your neighborhood nazi demon - stealer of childrens souls - self centered, smug, arrogant, bridge troll

- Tribo/sam -

Tribo.....

Vs 24 has nothing to do with a father and a mother is the sense you are questioning it. This was long after there were many people and is referring to a wedding......Now this also takes care for anyone that thinks that having multiple wives is ok.......

Adam and eve were the first.......

Genesis 5

From Adam to Noah
1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "

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.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.

9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.

32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Mothers in the Bible are most honored. The word "mother" or "mothers" appears in the Bible almost 300 times, and the word "mother-in-law" appears 11 times and always in reference to Naomi, mother-in-law of Ruth. The phrase "And his mother was . . ." appears 20 times in II Kings and II Chronicles, a fact that appeals to me as a genealogist. The phrase underlines the importance attached to the mothers of kings. Often the queen-mother is more honored than the queen-wife.

Now if this answer isn't good enough.....well then just keep asking for it.....but this is all you will get from me...and I won't be repeating it at any time. tyvm

Nope afraid not.......

??? - you must have misread my question deb, read it closely again - what you have stated here does not touch on what i asked - you can reply to me in private if you wish ok? thnx.

Oh good. I didnt want to say anything but I was like what??? Im glad I wasn't the only one. I would like to know the answer to this and I promise no arguing. I would just like to know unless you guys are going to go private with it.

THAT'S PRETTY PATHETIC IF THAT IS A WIN FOR YOU




and sorry to shatter your make believe world of living as you choose but you have not shattered anything except your delusions...which of course you all are great at that....I have yet to see proof from any of you for any threads I have done.....hmmmmmmmm let me think nope....you haven't yet....And then you must have a pow wow and ask yourself why you are all sitting around talking to yourselves.......Because your act is weak to say the least. And hmmmm have I seen one scientific piece of evidence backing up your delusions & beliefs.....no......and thats a no brainer because none of you know what you believe.


Good luck in school....and maybe a few courses on the Bible and then you can come back and have a real discussions about God, scripture.

You are joking right.......your
Question?

since Adam and eve had no >>mother<< and only god was there father/creator - why would he be stating this if there were no earthly fathers and mothers at that time? How would he even know to call a mother a mother at that point? And why would he set up a precedent of the man leaving a "mother" to live with the wife/woman if there were no "mothers" yet? Where would he even get such a precedent or idea from?

In my opinion only from later traditional thoughts or ceremony "AFTER" Adam would have lived. This is a Hebrew thought or ceremony >>long after Adam lived<< - how else could he have known to say this statement? In fact it flies in the face of what he could know, since he knew of no "mother" - nor could "he" actually even possibly >>>>do as he stated<<<< he could not have >>>>left his "mother"<<<< HE >>>HAD NONE!!!!!<<< - This is not only a contradiction it's a bald face attemt to make readers think that this is what Adam said at the time.

This is a perfect example of >>"man"<< writing >>>"after the fact"<<< and adding his own thoughts and holdings into the mix.

If I'm wrong then please show me where and how. thnx

You were specifically asking where then did mothers and father derive........well duh......adam had children....

Would you like the whole family tree from Adam to Jesus........

if nothing comes from nothing then beginnings are incoherent themselves and relating beginnings is inconsequential to knowledge and all that is known.

Therefore the scriptures are conclusory, with that brand of logic.

which is why some refuse to allow religious thought to enter the heart and mind.

fair enough.

well, let's apply that same logic to everything anyone of that conclusion having been drawn for exclusion from their full faculties has embraced and peer into that which they profess.

Applyingtheir logic to whatever they hae learned ad esteemed of themselves to be worthy of their employ, they themselves and their mentors are to be rejected, likewise, yet justice has not been served in equilibrium.

If their logic was to be believed, they themselves would know nothing at all.

All that is really left to conclude is that hypocrisy is the guiding light of the selective and argumentative.

They establish their own incredibility every time they open their mouths and move their fingers.


But they do not see themselves in the mirror.

It takes a lunatic like me to point that out.

Mothers and fathers indeed.

is there then a mother and father of lies?

somebody taught them to say that scriptural truths are contradictory and hypocritical, but forgot to tell them that all of their own beliefs are a matter of incapacity being that one must have faith in being taught anything from any knowing individual and teaching something or anything from a forward point looking backwards in any case is not a genuine depiction of an original event..

I am not surprised that we can say hello to one another, but I am surprised that such logic does not prevent saying hello in reciprocation as a response worthy of acknowledging, as it applies across the board.

Some things make no sense about the way humans perceive themselves in a diffrent light than they perceive others.

I am glad for the illumination of my soul that gives me discernment of spew as wisdom that is not reciprocal.

In that I am grateful to Almighty God.

Man would keep in the dark aND UNDER HIS THUMB FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGES IF aLMIGHTY gOD DID NOT GIVE ME my portion.


where this lands, it belongs.




something is fishy here.

Deb, you obviously missed the post in which I stated there were no winners. I guess my attempt at humor is about as good as Wouldee's then. Sorry.



That was my plan for this semester, but the class was on the wrong day. With Philosophy as my minor I'm sure other opportunities will present themselves.

Maybe then I will have learned more patience and can debate from the viewpoint of scholars about Christianity. But I'm not delusional, I have no doubt "they" will be found in error.

I could be off on this Deb but I think this particular passage that tribo has mentioned, Adam and Eve had NOT actually had any children yet. It was right after their creation. I think that is where the confusion about the term mother comes in and why that word would be used at this point. I might be wrong though so I will stay out of it.

deb, your misunderstanding what i'm asking -

adam made this statement before there were any mothers - eve had no children she was just manufactured by god and brought to adam when he makes this out of context statement. So what i'm asking is where - if at that point in time - did he arrive at thought of "mothers" and - how could he even obey his own words seeing that they/he was not of a mother? eve was not a "mother" yet according to the timeline - so where did the concept spoken of by adam of a man leaving his mother come from? At this point i have no reason than to believe other than moses or the writer of genisis added this later to give weight to the marriage laws that came at a later time - if not then please explain how this concept of "mother" is spoken by the first "motherless man on earth"?
And why is he speaking it? and how could he keep that which he spoke seeing that he had no mother to leave? it neither fits the rest of the story being spoke before or after the statement deb- it's like it has just been plopped into the text out of nowhere for no reason other than to uphold marriage ceremony that followed much later - can't you see this?

Apparently you don't read Abra's posts.

It took me a while to find this post. I assume Tribo, and all, that this is the post you are referencing that needs to be adressed?

Well - first of all, Genesis is not a diary, it is a book which encompasses the history of a people. It was written with a specific audience in mind, and the ends to that means was to include - not only histories and geneologies, but a message as well. without getting into too much detail about it's origin, intent, or purpose - it is well worth noting that it is the 1st of 5 books whose authorship is credited to Moses - and tells of a time long before he walked this earth.
Whether his account is attributed to the accounts handed down from generation to generation, or God guiding his hand, or wispering in his ear - it is obvious that he is relating what he understood occured before he did. It's obvious he wrote it "after the fact" - only an idiot would think otherwise. But is the fact that he didn't explain how Adam knew of the concept of "motherhood" mean Adam didn't know?

In Genesis 1:28 it says "God blessed them and said to them 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it'."

Moses did not bother to explain how Adam knew what that would mean - because obviously, neither Adam nor Eve had never had sex before. However - we know they somehow figured it out. We also know that the Lord God walked with Adam and Eve through the garden - are we to assume they didn't speak? Anyway... back to the question.

Why are you asking about Adam concerning verse 24.
This is not a direct quote of Adam's - it is an observation of Moses based on the intent behind god creating Eve as a help mate for Adam, and the command to increase in number. During the account of the fall - God says to Adam "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree..." (Gen 3:17) - so it is safe to assume that Adam was not unfamiliar with this concept.
But because we are not specifically told that the Lord God sat them down and explained this to them in the account of Genesis - that we are to now think this is somehow contradictory? Or that this cannot be reasoned out?

I would almost be tempted to come out and say "Gee Tribo, good question" - but that would be to treat you like a child for not having the ability to reason this out. Now that I think of it - a child would reason this out. As to those who would sit and read this account - it stands to reason that "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living" (Gen 3:20) is a clear indication that - despite not having a mother himself, he was clearly aware of the concept.

That is how, and why you are wrong to "assume" that Moses is "making it up". You are attempting to exact a premise that does not support your argument. The reason for this is because you are attempting to establish that the account of Genesis is strictly linear - when it can be seen
(and I know that you are aware of this) that the mere structure of chapter 1 and then chapter 2 establishes that it is not. It is not a diary, it is an account. If you want the diary of Adam and Eve, you'll have to look it up under "Samuel Clements".

Actually Tribo - you are exactly right about this.
It is something that Moses states to emphasis the "message" behind the account. It does not flow out of the narrative - for it comes immediately after a quote by Adam - and having finished the thought, he moves onto the account of the fall. He does this throughout Genesis.
It is part of the literary structure of Genesis.

Very good.

Di

I would tend to agree with you - based on how this thread has progressed over the 70 some odd pages - there isn't a "winner". I suppose the winners are those who have gotten something from the discussions. Those who put some effort and study into their posts, and expanded an understanding, or cleared a misconception - or even just solidified their own view. Those are the winners. I'm a winner. Tribo challenged me to expand my exegesis on the Flood and motherhood - Krisma made me read Leviticus - again - then again - then again. I was not inconvenienced by this - but enlightened. I read some posts that were clearly wrong perceptions - and those helped point the way to what was right. And even some posts that misunderstood some questions brought interesting things to light.

I tend to agree with Spider though, in his realization that the parameters he attempted to establish in his OP were just not going to reign in the disagreements, because the contradictions do not lie in the text as much as they do in the perceptions of what is being said. Nor in the manner in which the specific exegesis' would be researched. It is like the point that Krimsa brought forth. Why does it take longer to atone for the birth of a female than a male. That can be studied out to a reasonable conclusion by going to other places in the text to see how the topic of atonement is handled - but the mere fact of the matter is - The text doesn't say "Why", it just says "Do". That is the answer. It's this way because it says it is.

So - despite the fact that it would appear that little was accomplished over these 70+ pages, that does not necessarily mean that little was not learned.

Eljay, I have had it with you in light of your rude comments and insults directed towards me and the fact that you deleted a question that you had originally posed to me because I in fact answered it and you were embarrassed and had no reply. I ask, once again dear sir, if you are not embarrassed or indeed have a rebuttal to that comment, REPOST the question. You have not done so thus far.

Most skeptics tend to dismiss the story told in the first three chapters of Genesis as so obviously mythical as to be unworthy of any serious discussion. Therein lies the main difficulty-most fundamentalists do not! Thus we have no choice but to look at the accounts closely.

Two Contradictory Creation Stories

Let us start by pointing out that that there are actually two separate and different stories of creation contained in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24. That these two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts) we will show below:

According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested.

Given below is the second story.

Genesis 2:4-9, 18-19

In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground, then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food...

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

The two stories contradict each other in many areas:

The order of creation: The reader will notice that the order of creation is completely different from the first story in Genesis. Man, according to Genesis chapter two, was made before any plants and animals were created. There is no ambiguity with the wording. It is clearly stated that there were no plants of any kind when man was first created. It was also clearly stated that animals were created after man was created as helpers for the human! According to Genesis chapter one, plants created in day three and animals in day five and six with man being the last item of creation on the sixth day.

The creation of man and woman. According to Genesis 1:27 man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


Yet the story in Genesis 2 was that woman was created as an afterthought; only after God was unable to find a suitable helper for Adam among the animals: NICE!

Genesis 2:20-22
The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman


There are other contradictions between the two stories which anyone can begin to compile a list there of if they simply read both.

In the first account, water first covered the earth and dry land was not made until the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). In the second account, the earth was dry land before a mist came up from the earth and watered the whole earth (Genesis 2:5-6)

The first story tells of the creation of the universe in seven days. Yet the second story implies that all was created in a single day[2] (Genesis 2:4 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…)

In the first story, the man and woman was allowed to eat any fruit (Genesis 1:29 and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food), yet in the second story he is prohibited from eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17 & 3:3).

The reference to God in the first account was simply Elohim (normally translated as God) while in the second account the creator is always referred to as Yahweh Elohim (usually translated as Lord God).[3]

It is quite obvious that we are looking at two contrary accounts of the creation of the universe. And if they are contrary, at least one must be false-i.e. just by looking within the Bible itself we have shown that at least one story is a myth. My money is on both.

Genesis 1:1-Genesis 2:3 is the story of creation from God's perspective, while Genesis 2:4-2:25 is creation from Adam's perspective. Both perspectives are given to teach a lesson, which is that Adam believed things to be one way, but God knew they were another.

Before you object, let me assure you that I have no proof of this interpretation. This interpretation is accepted in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but there is no scriptures which teach this. If you accept this interpretation, it will answer most of your contradictions.