I have been recently reading holy bible, and it would be an understatement if I were to say I was confused.

I have a few questions if thou permissith me...

1. What am I to gather from the fact that money is the ruite of all evil, yet holy bible tellith me "And the gold of that land is good." Genesis 2:12

2. What am I to make of the creptic remark by god "Be fruitful, and multipy, and replenish the earth". Genesis 1:28

What does he mean "replenish"? is there a back story that we have not been told? Maybe he's waiting a few years, then he'll release "Life : Episode I - The Pantom Race" (just a little SW humor).

3. Why do women (or as they are referred in holy bible "an help meet" Genesis 2:18) in holy bible seem so evil? I know a few, and they don't seem all that bad.

4. I don't even know where to begin to tell you what is wrong with beating women.. or as it is put in holy bible "bruise thy head".. yet lord god hath done this to Eve for eating from the tree of knoledge Genesis 3:15

5. Woman's Liberation is apearently wrong in the eyes of god. "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" Genesis 3:16

6. Did god make Bread to give Adam and Eve? it says that before he cast them out of the garden, he condemned them to eat bread untill they die. Genesis 3:19 I didn't know bread exsisted back then?!

7. OK, Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. God hated Cain's offering, but loved Abel's offering.. Genesis 4:3

This caused Cain to kill Abel. There are now 3 people. Cain, Adam, and Eve. Yet in Genesis 4:16 Cain has a Wife who remains unnamed. where did she come from? So now we have Cain, Adam, Eve, and Cain's unnamed wife. So Cain's "an help meet" concieved "Enoch". So now we have 3 guys and 2 girls. 1 grl being Eve, and the other being Cain's "an help meet". Now, in Genesis 4:18, Enoch bared a child (it doesn't say that he had a wife.. so it's like she just had a baby one day...) Enoch's baby was called Irad... Irad then had a baby called Mehujael.. then he had a baby called Methusael, then he had a baby named "Lamech"... now Lamech then somehow got his hands on 2 wifes (the only two women in exsistance being Eve and Cain's "an help meet". Yet, these were not his 2 wives names.. they were infact "Adah" and "Zillah" where did these women come from? there is no previous mention of them. Genesis 4:17 - 4:20


8. How could Cainan live 910 years (he sounds like Yoda) Genesis 5:14

And it's not lik this was just a rare occurance...

Enos Died at the age of 905

Mahalaleel Died at age 895

Jared Lived to the age of 962

Enoch Lived to the age of 363 (he died young )

Genesis 5:11 - 5:23


This is all the further I have gotten (about 10 pages) and I find it really hard to understand. I'm not trying to make fun of holy bible, I just want to understand it fully, so I can continue to read with a clear head.

I recommend that you use the NIV instead of the KJV. You'll find it a lot easier to read. I also recommend you read not just the Old Testament, but the New Testament. The NT is what really matters; it has the information that can save your soul now. The Old Testament laws do not apply anymore. [url]www.gospelcom.net[/url] is one site where you can read it online for free.

Why does the old testement not matter anymore? was it wrong, or did god decide to change the laws? Why would god want to change the laws.. if god = infallable.. then why would the original laws not be good enough now days??

disappointed that this isn't a thread started because someone dusted off their old genesis and hooked it up...

God's plan included sending Jesus to create a new covenant and destroy the old ways. Jesus's coming is foretold in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, salvation was based on obeying God's strict laws. However, when Jesus died and was risen, the OT laws were thrown out. Salvation now is based on faith in Jesus Christ.

That's just the three-sentence version. There is a whole lot more to the story. I'll be glad to study with you anytime, just let me know how I can help. And I'll be praying for you.

I'm no bibleologist, so any answer I give should be consider incorrect, and possible in satire.

That's because women committed the original sin when Eve ate the apple that God specifically told her not to. Thanks to her, we all live in sin.


I think I should point something out. God didn't write the bible. Infact, humans did. And its impossible to write something without letting your own prejugdice get into what you are writing. In this case, women's liberation didn't exist and therefore, that is reflected in the scripture.

Furthermore, in my opinion, one should not take the words of the bible so literally. It's been translated (in some cases translated many times and poorly) and I think is meant to be inturpreted.

I'm bored. I really don't have any real answers. I don't really believe in religion anyways. I believe in God or a higher devine power, but I don't believe in religion in any organized sense. I approach spirituality in a personal way.

Hey, if that means I'm going to hell then that's fine by me. Hell is where the party's at. Besides, if they are going to send me to hell for anything, its for being gay :p (And no, I obviously don't believe homosexuality is a sin in any sense of the word. What's a sin is that I'm single.)

This is way too much right now.

So you are saying that the part about "women being men's servants" is fake.. because men kinda put it in there because that's what HE thought was right at the time.. right?

Sort of yeah. I'm saying that when the bible was written (by humans), that was the normal way of thinking, so ofcourse it's not outragous to see it there. It seems wrong to us because we live in completely different societies.

Imagine if you wrote a book about women being equal to men back then. They'd think you were crazy! It's all about the society that was around when the material was written.

but then doesn't that throw the rest of holy bible into question? if they fibbed on one part, and it is proven that this has happened, how can u know if it will happen again?

Now you are saying they lied. Nobody lied, they just wrote what the norm was at the time. Women were considered servents at the time, that was a fact.

It's not a lie, it's just not relavent anymore. As for it throwing the whole bible into question, yeah I think that any of it you have to think about how society's biases influenced the scripture. It doesn't make it a lie, it just may make it mean something different, or make certain things irrelevent in today's society.

well, they said that god said something that he didn't... i'd call that a lie...

Maybe God did say it, though. But the bible itself, the document was written by humans. Inturprete that how you want. You also have to consider that the bible has been translated a lot, and that translation has been shown to be of less than stellar quality at times.

My point is you have to remember about societal bias of the time. You should think about that no matter what you are reading.

unless its holy bible... its supposta be the word of god... and if it is, social bias should not effect god... and if it is not the word of god, and these people only made up what was socially acceptable, as u are claiming, then how am i to know if the rest of holy bible is absolute truth, or just another gander into what was socially acceptable back then?

hinch1 : I wasn't going to say anything earlier, but when u said "Imagine if you wrote a book about women being equal to men back then. They'd think you were crazy!".. to me that meant...

If we write the devine truth, no one will follow our religion, so if we write what is popular, everyone will love us...

and a mysterious man who lives in the sky and makes things in the wink of an eye, turns dirt into men, and a rib bone into women is all well and good... but the second someone mentions women being equal to men in holy bible..... WOAH!! that's way too far fetched... the people writing this MUST be crazy... "WOMEN EQUAL TO MEN?!" WTF!!

Well its a fact that the bible was written by humans, and it was not written in English so any English version has been translated several times by different people (from Hebrew int part atleast or Latin. I don't know for sure, so don't quote me on that). So if you are reading an english version of the Bible, you are not litterally reading the "word of God". I don't advice that you take anything you read as absolute.

I'm not saying the bible is all wrong. I'm not saying its all right. I don't advice you read anything without considering social bias, and never take anything you read as absolute. I think that the bible is filled with useful and meaningful stories. I never consider it historically correct. I never consider it absolute or infallible. I know that man wrote it, not God. I know that man translated, not God. I know that there is social bias in it. But I don't think you should write it all off as "wrong" because of that. Think for yourself about what it says and think about what that means to you. God gave you a brain to think for yourself, not so that you coulf blindly follow a book that has been translated to shreds.

Read, inturpret, question. That's my theory.

I would say the most important thing to decide first would be if you want to believe in God or in a book. If it's the book, you can go ahead and read literally everything in OT. If it's God, you might pay some attention to the other opinions presented here.

Well said. It's an important question to ask yourself, I think. Ultimately it's an answer you'll have to find for yourself. I think it goes along the same lines as my own views regarding religion. I believe in God, not in some guy with a collar who tells me what to think and what to believe. He's human, like myself and therefore I don't think he's any more qualified to know God than I am. He's no more special than I am.

I believe God gave me a brain to think for myself. When you stop thinking for yourself, and the church starts thinking for you, then I think you are totally defeating the gift given to you by the devine.

Again, if I go to hell for what I believe, so be it. I don' t think I'd like it in a heaven where I can't form my own opinions and beliefs anyways :p And, as stated earlier my condemnation to hell can be secured for much more interesting reasons.

Let's also not forget the fact that hinch1 is only stating an opinion. Many Christians believe that the bible is an unbiased book, and that these humans wrote exactly what God wanted them to. I just thought that it was important that you also consider this point of view, which just so happens to be popular throughout history, and even today.

While I wouldn't go as far as to say that the translation is irrelevant, the truth is that you can get the general idea (which is what 99% of so-called Christians do anyways), from any translation. If you're interested in translations, you may want to get a bible that contains both KJV, NKJV (a more modern translation of KJV), and NIV. Personally, when I'm feeling romatic, I like the almost Shakespearian KJV, but when I don't want to think too much, I read the NKJV or NIV. BTW, there are a ton of websites dedicated to the differences between translations, if interested.

I don't have time to answer your other questions right now, as I'm late to work, and I'm sure that there are plenty of Christians that could do a better job anyways. Just remember that there are many interpretations for each scripture, and that you should come to your own conclusion, not necessarily what someone else believes.

As was suggested, my best advice would be to pick up (or read an online version) of the NIV translation. It's arguably the easiest one to understand for someone who's just getting into it.

1;
Genesis 2:11-12
(talking about rivers)
"The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; pearls and onyx are also there.)..."

I think in that context it meant gold not as a form of currency, but as like... the resources of the area or something. I'm not very good with words anyway, but right now I'm tired, so please bear with me here. I think that verse is saying that Havilah was a shiny pretty looking place, not a place with lots of money.

2;
Genesis 1:28
"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.""

Pretty much what I think it's saying there is that God is giving man authority over the earth and telling them to go and reproduce.

3;
As for #3... I don't know where you're seeing women being portrayed as evil. Eve made the first sin, but adam followed immediately after... I don't think it was "OMG WOMEN R TEH EVIL" as much as eve just happened to be the first person to sin. I can't really help you more than that without being given specific examples of what you mean.

4;
Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

That's God talking to the serpent, not to eve. That verse is referring to what would later happen in the New Testament. The "offspring" would be Jesus, who's 'heel would be struck' with him dying on the cross, but would return to crush satan's head. (like saying "you'll bruise him but he'll friggin send you to the hospital"; satan would be a minor inconvenience in the long run and would be conquered in the end)

5;
I'm not going to bother typing up the NIV verse, because they're pretty much exactly the same. I'm no biblical scholar, so I can't tell you exactly what the end result is, but here's what I know... This may be just one of those rules in the old testament that is later changed in the new testament (quick summary of what happens with the rules and such; God made a lot of laws in the old testament, aimed towards man working for his own salvation. throughout the entire old testament, man proves that he himself cannot bring himself to be saved, so God sent Jesus to die on the cross, to take the punishment of man, so that man could be saved. so, yeah, there's a purpose for it, it's not God changing his mind whimsically), or it may be referring to the roles God has set out for man and woman. From what I understand, God designed man to be the "leader" and woman to be the "helper", but that doesn't mean all women are man's slaves. I would relate it more to a class system in videogames; A soldier is designed to go out and do all the hard work and kick lots of ***, while the medic is designed to stay behind the front lines and support the rest of the team. Surely the medic could probably kick as much *** as the soldier if it needed to (though it may be harder to do so), and it wouldn't be "against the rules" of the game, but it wouldn't be what the medic was designed for. (likewise, the soldier could just as well take up a supportive role if he needed to)

For this specific verse, honestly, I don't know the answer, but that's as close as I was able to get. Again, though, I'm no priest or biblical scholar, though, so you might want to ask someone with a bit more knowledge than I have. (Infact, I'm sure my pastor would be glad to talk to you if you're interested, and he'd answer your questions better than I could, but I'll do the best I can anyway)

6;
Genesis 3:17b-19
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return."

I can see where you would be confused there; the KJV, from what I understand, is more symbolic than literal (hence the "bread" part). What this verse is saying is that now Man will have to work for his food (it won't just be sitting on a silver platter anymore)

7 & 8;

In Genesis 5, it says how pretty much everyone "had [soandso], lived longer, and then had other sons and daughters." I assume that Cain's wife was someone else's daughter. As for living longer... People in the old testament tend to live a very long time. My only explanation is that, since these are pretty much the first few generations of mankind (which was created in God's image), they have a very long life expectancy, which would eventually degrade over the years due to man's sin. (note that Adam's son was created in Adam's image (which had become sinful), and not God's. And then his son was created in his image, and not Adam's. Man's purity slowly degrades.)

I hope that was helpful. I know I'm not very good at explaining things, but I did the best I could. Again, my ultimate suggestion would be to read from a translation that's easier to understand, and if you still have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them as best as I can... as I said, I'm not an expert with this sort of thing, by any means, but I'll do my best to help

Um...eternal torture is a party? Imagine the worst possible physical torture that you can imagine, combined with the worst possible mental torture that you can imagine...that lasts forever. Is that what you want? I strongly advise you to seriously reconsider your position on that.



Just thought I'd point out Galations 3:26-29:



I'm logging off now. I'll check in again later.

I'd also like to add that this viewpoint is known as 'fundementalism'.
'Fundementalism' has gotten a lot of bad press lately, and is often itself considered a 'bad thing', but a lot of Christians are fundementalists without realising it.

He did say to expect a hint of sattire And I kinda get what he means, especially as someone who doesn't believe in the exact word of God. I always used to say 'hey, all my friends are going to hell, i'd be lonely in heaven!'

I don't mean that to belittle or undermine your faith, but I've been condemned to Hell already (if there is such a place) by plenty of charming Christians (the Christian Union at the University of Durham is full of really bad judgemental Christians let me tell you - obviously there are some exceptions though). I have 'lived in sin' for a good long while now, and I'm perfectly happy with that, as I was happy to laugh off the people telling me I would go to Hell.

Having faith is one thing, a very good thing as far as I'm concerned, as long as it remains personal. The CU were all walking round Durham wearing hoodies with a Bible quote along the lines of 'For we can not be help telling what we have heard' - I forget the quote, I'm sure someone'll recognise the gist and find it. Basically they used it as a lisence to go around ramming their beliefs down the throats of everyone in the city.

Ugh, sorry this is turning into a rant about the bad Christians at the CU, but they actually have a 'conversion week' where they go out en masse and try to convert as many people as possible - like a competition: it's sick.

AAANNYWAYS.....

Back on point... yeah, be fab and groovy to each other. That's good

Attack on obvious bs above edited out on request - but realize that it will haunt you.

-_-

Tenshu, that wasn't really necessary.

This thread is about the interpretation and meaning of Genesis passages. This is not about whether Genesis is correct.

Science vs. religion arguments are interesting, but they have their place, and this isn't it.

I know what you're saying, but I think it's still necessary hardcore. If something goes in (digital) print and noone attacks it for the obvious bs it is, people will start believing that it makes sense. But I get your point. It's probably just my endless frustration shining through.

Okay people, pretend the previous four posts never happened.

Continue!

Super Nintendo is way better than Genesis.

I prefer synthpop to Genesis.

Mega Drive >>> Genesis

My friend had a Genesis and he had this special channel on his tv that let him play any game he wanted. It always made me feel like my nintendo was inferior...

Oh, and about the "replenish" thing. I've heard some people say that there may have been some sort of other civilization before this one and that it was destroyed. This all supposedly takes place inbetween Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or something like that. Personally, all I think the "replenish" thing means is "go make babies."

SEGA CHANNEL.

Holy crap Sega Channel was like the GREATEST thing EVER.

GOD!

I want it back, SO FREAKING BAD!

Hell, I'd pay a subscription to that, EVEN NOW.

Seriously, Sega Channel > you.


But other than that, Genesis really didn't have anything going for it.

Could you please quote to me where the Bible says that money is the root of all evil?



There weren't that many humans. God wanted there to be more. For those of you who still don't get it, God was saying, "Have sex. Lots of sex."



Is that a typo? Genesis 2:18:





God's speaking to the serpent. He's saying that humankind will kill the serpent (bash him on the head) and that he will strike their heels (bite them).



This best sums up a response of mine:





What makes you think that bread didn't exist back then?



No, God did not look upon Cain's offering "with favor." i.e., He liked Abel's offering more - but He didn't hate Cain's.



What is "an help meet"? You refer to it, yet it makes absolutely no sense.

As for the children - here's an interesting two-sided discusson on it.



They just did back then.

A lot of your questions seem to be about scripture taken out-of-context.

I've got to go to work shortly, but here's some responses...



The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. Big distinction.



That's a bad translation. The Hebrew for "replenish" simply means "fill", not "fill again". Actually, when the KJV was translated, the English word "replenish" simply meant "fill", as well. Our language has changed since then.



Actually, there's only one or two instances of evil women that I can think of in the whole Bible. Jezebel and Delilah being the main ones. Read the book of Esther for a better idea of how the Bible views women.



As someone else mentioned, it was the serpent whose head was to be beaten, not Eve's.



Keep in mind that this was a curse, ie, a bad thing. It was merely describing what would happen, not saying that this is the way it should be.



Adam was an intelligent man, and bread's not all that hard to make.



I don't have time to look up the exact verse right now, but the Bible does say later on that Adam had "other sons and daughters". I read somewhere that, by the time Cain killed Abel, there could theoretically have been thousands of people on the Earth. Hundreds, certainly.




You got me there. Keep in mind that the original design was for them to live forever, though. Compared to that, 900 years isn't all that long, really.



There should be more open-minded people in the world like you.

Years in that part of the Bible are really months, because that's how they measured years back then. If you do the math, 900 months is like 75-ish years. You don't actually think they lived that long, do you? *laff* I'm guessing they actually measured time by the moon, so it would be slightly less than a month, which makes sense because 75 years is a very long time to live (too long) back then.

Someone was ready everything I posted. I'm touched and you deserve a reward. But since when do we get everything we deserve?

I learned to be cynical of religion, there are far too many people who tell me I am going to hell because of something silly like my sexual orientation. Being something I can't change, and the fact that I honestly believe that God made me gay because that was what he wanted for me, I'm comfortable with how I stand with God in relation to my own spiritual beliefs. (Notice how I stated that all in first person, relating to me, and in no way applied that to anyone else. I didn't state it as fact, either.).

I'd like to also state that though I don't believe in religion, I do resepect people's religious beliefs as long as they are based in tolerance and love, and those beliefs are not pushed upon me.

Many Christians take a symbolic stance on hell. I've spoken with many Christians who actually believe that Shaitan doesn't exist and that hell is simply the grave (ceasing to exist). I just thought that I'd point out an opposing view.



I'd also like to point out the fact that many Christians believe that the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament. While many Christians believe that the old laws no longer apply, the lessons learned in the Old Testament, by many, are considered to be some of the most important in the bible.



Way to pull back without actually pulling back.



I'd just like to point out the fact that many Christians actually do believe that they lived that long. I'm open to the possibility, myself.



It may not be difficult to make in our day and age, with a thousand recipes for bread, but I think he was asking how Adam went about figuring out how to make it on his own. It may be a trivial matter, but it's interesting that the bible is claiming that he is the inventor of bread, or at least that God provided the knowledge to them, thus making the origins of bread, divine.

Another interesting thing that should be discussed when dealing with Genesis is incest. If one believes in the strict interpretation of Genesis, we're all products of incest, unless of course, you believe in the theory that the early humans actually bred with the Nephilim, who many Christians, even today, believe were a race of giants.

they lived longer because it was pre-flood. better environment.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The flood spoken of in the Bible was highly regional. It wouldn't have affected the living conditions of the other peoples of the world, not to mention a flood would probably improve living conditions, making the soil more fertile. Again, do the math. 900 -> 75 is too good to be true.