There's no scientific evidence of a flood as described. Or snakes eating dirt. Or talking donkeys. Or camels existing in the wrong place and the wrong time.
What makes that error?
Is it Genesis or the reader or the writer in error?
"natural" reactions, indeed, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men.
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true.
That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you."
Well, I didn't "just get to say" that and have it be true. I was quoting scripture, which surely you already knew. So your accusation of arrogance is false and unfounded
On 9/9/2018 at 11:32 AM, Raf said:
"The foolishness of God is wiser than men" absolves you of any need to even consider the validity of what I've just laid out.
No, not at all. But if I, in my own inherent weakness and shortness of complete understanding can make good enough sense of it, I am more than convinced that the foolishness of Godiswiser than men. Whether or not I could ever communicate to you enough of my own perspective on the matter is another issue altogether. Not that it even matters one iota. Because it seems that you evidently want it completely spelled out for you in black and white. Which, I don't see being completely possible, not even in scripture.
However, I do think there's a thread, woven through scripture, that paints a picture of the invisible on the canvas of believing. Sure, I can undoubtedly describe a great many things that I see to you, and how certain things make plenty of sense if or when viewed from the right perspective. But you will deny that my perspective is valid, or has any chance of being valid, because it's not how you see and think of it, or will allow room for, or if by chance my own communication of (or understanding of) some other part of it is not as complete or as thorough as you think it should be.
Consider this, if you will. Fifty thousand pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are set before you. There are edge pieces, but many of the pieces appear to be similar, or have varying degrees of depth. Some of the pieces look like they ought to fit together, but they don't. Perhaps they are part of some sort of three dimensional puzzle. Or maybe it's pieces to more than one puzzle. Do you pick up a piece of it and say, this piece is a mistake, because it doesn't fit where you think it needs to or should? Or do you put it back in the pile and think, I don't yet have the right piece for this, or the right place for that?
I have, some time ago, reasoned why there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood. And perhaps my perspective on it is far less than perfect. Still, given my overall perspective on life (both as we know it, and as it was probably first in Adam) and sin (even going back that of the father of lies), it is not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporal life currently bestowed upon us.
Surely you knew that I was aware you were citing scripture when you spoke of the foolishness of God being wiser than men. Nonetheless, you don't get to leap from that assertion to the "claim" that my accusation of arrogance is unfounded.
My accusation of arrogance is WELL-founded, and I outlined exactly why. Declaring your own position to be wise and alternative positions to be foolish is arrogant. It is arrogant whether you are doing it of your own spontaneous thought or if you are citing the scribblings of a 2,000-year-old itinerant preacher. The source of your claim is not what made it arrogant. The substance is.
I am not going to sit here and wait for you do spell out exactly why you came to the conclusion that it makes sense there would be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. It's YOUR claim. When you can articulate it, I'll be here. Simply stating that I will not be satisfied with your answer is a dodge. Articulate your answer. Then you can fault me for rejecting it.
I am going to refer back to our earlier discussion on this, however, because I think it is significant:
You just wrote: "itis not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporallife currently bestoweduponus."
In doing so, you are presuming eternal life, which is your prerogative, but there is no evidence that there is any such thing for any species. So to draw conclusions from it is wonderful as a matter of faith, but it does little or nothing to contribute to a discussion with someone who is not convinced there is any such thing. Further, and I've said this before, looking at this temporal life from an eternal perspective opens the door to defending all manner of atrocity, as this temporal life of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternity. So Abel gets murdered. So what? He has eternal life now. Job's kids? Eternal life! That dude who got killed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week? Don't worry, buddy. I know those great big rocks hurt, but look on the bright side: you're going to paradise! Ananias and Sapphira get insta-death penalty for holding back money from the church, but they're born again! So, bygones!
Any atrocity can be dismissed in significance if you look at things from an eternal perspective.
That's not really an answer to the questions we've been raising here. It's a dismissal of them.
Why didn't God warn Abel? Because it makes no difference from the eternal perspective. WOW!
If that's going to be the answer to everything, then this "eternal life" thing had better be rock-solid guarandamteed.
It's not. It's a wishful-thinking claim made by people who struggled to come to terms with the finality of death. Every culture struggles with the question. Every culture concocts a different answer. All claim evidence to support their mutually exclusive answers.
I don't believe I have read the skeptic's annotated Bible. I have heard of it. But I don't recall delving into it deeply because I was not a fan of the style.
I am not familiar with the second website at all
Third website is difficult to explain. I don't recall ever seeing that website. However, I do recall reading a book with the same title. Whether there's a connection between the book and the website, I do not know. I can't imagine it was a coincidence.
Trusting to see whether my explanations or observations are worded similarly or identically to the third site. It would certainly not have been intentional, but it is also certain that two people covering the same topic with the same point of view might word things in similar ways. Especially if one of them read the other first.
...it does little or nothing to contribute to a discussion with someone who is not convinced there is any such thing.
did you expect it to be so different from the many other things in the Bible that do little or nothing for someone not convinced of eternal life?
3 hours ago, Raf said:
Further, and I've said this before, looking at this temporal life from an eternal perspective opens the door to defending all manner of atrocity, as this temporal life of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternity.
I vehemently disagree that this temporal life "of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternal life." Rather, I see it as both essential and formative for what that eternal life can or (forever) will be. And in light of that, is not merely some doorway or path to "defend all manner of atrocity." What it does do, however, is add a substantially different perspective and new possibilities for understanding the why and wherefores of this current life.
3 hours ago, Raf said:
If that's going to be the answer to everything, then this "eternal life" thing had better be rock-solid guarandamteed.
I certainly do not see it as the answer to everything.
However, from my perspective, it is without a doubt, absolutely rock-solid, guarandamteed.
3 hours ago, Raf said:
people who struggled to come to terms with the finality of death.
I crossed the Rubicon (so to speak) of that in my own life well over 50 years ago (well before I ever knew or heard of twi.) Call it a deeply personal religious experience if you want, it makes no difference whatsoever to me. After once coming face to face with (and more or less accepting) eternal separation from God, the flicker of light that suddenly ignited within me simply cannot be changed or undone.
There's no scientific evidence of a flood as described. Or snakes eating dirt. Or talking donkeys. Or camels existing in the wrong place and the wrong time.
What makes that error?
Is it Genesis or the reader or the writer in error?
Also, which criteria from PFAL are being applied?
(for anyone besides the usual to reply)
If I were in a bad mood, I would say that if there were one preposition out of place, the whole thing would fall to pieces.
I do not believe the question of what makes it an error is a sincere question. If I say the check is in the mail, and the check is not in the mail, then I am wrong. I am in error. Am I lying? There's no way to know that for sure. Maybe I think it's in the mail, and it's not. But the statement itself is in error.
Whether Genesis is an error or its writer is in error are not mutually exclusive propositions. They could both be in error. Or perhaps only the book is in error. If the reader is in error, then that's not an actual error in Genesis.
An assertion of fact that is untrue, or the presentation of two mutually exclusive facts would qualify as actual errors. Matthew says Jesus's family moved to Nazareth when he was several years old. Luke says his family lived in Nazareth when he was born. They cannot both be correct. That is an actual error.
But honestly, am I the only one who recognizes the insincerity of the question "what makes that error"? It's an assertion of fact that is untrue. This isn't difficult.
Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee.
And yes, by comparing this life to the next in the precise way that you have to make the precise point you are making does indeed rob this life of value, and it does indeed justify any atrocity in this life as long as the victim has eternal life.
This is how YOU are applying it! Why didn't God warn Abel? Eternal life! That's a HORRIBLE answer! But you can't even see that.
I think Nazareth is the city that doesn't exist in existence in any book or journal, besides the new testament, until 180 a.d. to 350 a.d.
I've heard that. I've also heard that there was a Nazareth that existed before the time of Jesus's birth, and a Nazareth that existed long after Jesus died, but no Nazareth while he was alive. That strikes me as a little too convenient. I would say that while I am not 100% convinced that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus' life, I think it is more likely that it did. But I wouldn't bet more than a few dollars.
Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee.
Of course it isn't from your perspective. (And I've never said or implied otherwise.)
5 minutes ago, Raf said:
And yes, by comparing this life to the next in the precise way that you have to make the precise point you are making does indeed rob this life of value, and it does indeed justify any atrocity in this life as long as the victim has eternal life.
You make it sound like death by any atrocity is some sort of ticket to eternal life... which is ridiculous.
8 minutes ago, Raf said:
This is how YOU are applying it!
And you're nuts if you think that's how I applied it.
11 minutes ago, Raf said:
Why didn't God warn Abel?
Given Adam's sin and that man was already expelled from Eden, why think or suppose that man should or would be so closely connected to God?
I do not think or suppose that this life that we currently have was ever designed or intended as being "forever." However, I also do not think or suppose that it needed to finish or end only by death. That is, until Adam failed to preserve the purity of what was to be believed. Instead, he chose to believe the reality of his senses above that which was revealed and known to him spiritually. Part of the reality that he so elevated was the simple fact that this life is (and always was) temporal.
Adam having so irreversibly damaged his own means to effectively perceive the spiritual realities of God's creation, God was then challenged with how to successfully bring spiritually impaired man across the finish line by the end of the appointed time.
If you want to get lost in the weeds of how or why He did or didn't deal with anyone along the way, well... that's certainly a rather popular place to camp out in. Personally, I'm sorta inclined to think his intervention in men's lives throughout history as they "work out their own salvation" tends to be rather minimalistic. If you don't want or need help, neither do you get it. As far as why Cain's offering was refused, seems to be fairly straightforward as far as I can tell. Regardless of the fact that we (as readers) aren't informed until much later, it is made known that without blood there is no remission of sin. Even if, as you purport, Cain didn't know (or forgot) this, perhaps some alternate translation/interpretation of Gen.4:7 would clarify the probability that God reminded him of it, telling him that a sin offering (for Cain) waited for him by the door, and that he had rule over it. But, Cain chose not to believe God, or accept that, and after talking with Able, chose rather to kill him.
Genesis 4:7 (YLT)Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'
Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee.
Yes, I repeated myself. Because for some reason it didnt sink in. You seem to think this is a matter of perspective. It's not. You seem to think declarations have as much value as evidence. They do not.
It is obscene that you misrepresent my position. YOU are the one minimizing atrocities by viewing them through eternal-life glasses, not I.
Why think God would be close enough to talk to Abel to talk to him? I can't believe that question is being asked with a straight face. God speaks directly to Cain, whose sacrifice is not accepted. Yet he ignores Abel. And you seriously are asking me why I think God would speak to Abel.
After the fall, Genesis mentions five characters. Adam. God speaks to him directly. Eve. God speaks to her directly. The serpent. God speaks to him directly. Cain. God speaks to him directly. Abel. F@#! that guy.
I'm not sure Genesis claims eternal life. Maybe it does. A happy ending story is nice but not that's not normal.
The writers, being likely in the hundreds or thousands of individuals over generations of oral storytelling, probably noted many people's reactions to a goody two-shoes like Abel.
God seams to be a sufficient character for internal dialogue in a story like these.
Asfar as why Cain's offering was refused, seems to be fairly straightforward as far as I can tell. Regardless of the fact that we (as readers) aren't informed until much later, it is made known that without blood there is no remission of sin. Even if, as you purport, Cain didn't know (or forgot) this, perhaps some alternate translation/interpretation of Gen.4:7 would clarify the probability that God reminded him of it, telling him that a sin offering (for Cain) waited for him by the door, and that he had rule over it. But, Cain chose not to believe God, or accept that, and after talking with Able, chose rather to kill him.
Read this carefully. Even if, as I purport ... Never mind what the text actually says and doesn't say. He's going to try to hang this on me.
MAYBE there's an alternate translation of Gen. 4:7. Maybe. (Psst: the burden is on you to find it, not to simply declare the possibility that such a text exists and draw conclusions from it).
Maybe God reminded him. (He didn't. It's not there).
This is the kind of illogic that makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some believers. The Bible means what it says and it says what it means, until it doesn't say what I wish it said. Then I pull out the wishful thinking card. There might maybe be an alternate translation that says what I want it to say...
Meanwhile, your only explanation for why God speaks directly to literally everyone in the Bible except the person who could use a little life-saving advice right about now is basically "whatevs."
On this kind of logic you guarandamtee eternal life? Please.
MAYBE there's an alternate translation of Gen. 4:7. Maybe. (Psst: the burden is on you to find it, not to simply declare the possibility that such a text exists and draw conclusions from it).
Say what? (Psst: It was in the previous post already... but, perhaps you weren't ready to hear it.)
20 hours ago, TLC said:
Genesis 4:7 (YLT)Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'
YLT = Young's Literal Translation (in case you didn't know already.)
There's nothing there about blood being required for a sin offering. Not even a hint.
In fact, if you were to take it at his word, it's clear that the problem was his attitude, not the absence of blood.
Moreover, there's zero clarity about what the problem was with Cain. Much like Passing of a Patriarch, it's a criticism of being sinful with zero articulation about what sinful means.
Csin's problem was he did not do well? That's it?
Mind you, you're quoting a verse in which God speaks directly to Cain, nullifying your excuses about his unwillingness to speak to Abel, whose life depends on knowing what Cain will do.
There's nothing there about blood being required for a sin offering. Not even a hint.
If the author of a novel gave you pertinent information later in the story, you would undoubtedly accept it as being relevant to (or in) the beginning of it. Yet, because you don't believe that God is the sole author responsible for what is written later in the Bible, you can't and won't allow for it here.
23 hours ago, Raf said:
In fact, if you were to take it at his word, it's clear that the problem was his attitude, not the absence of blood.
In the sense of his "attitude" being a direct reflection and indication of what he did or didn't believe, I'd probably agree. That said, I see the absence of blood in his offering as evidence that he didn't believe [God] that it was required. Let's back it up to ask what the reason might have been for any offering whatsoever. Was God actually in need of anything that man could offer? (I think not.) And if not, then what possible thoughts could have been behind Cain's offering? (Some logical reading between the lines goes a long way towards explaining what might be going on here......... but that's evidently something that most people solely trained at twi were/are either afraid to do and/or plainly suck at.)
23 hours ago, Raf said:
Mind you, you're quoting a verse in which God speaks directly to Cain, nullifying your excuses about his unwillingness to speak to Abel, whose life depends on knowing what Cain will do.
And you either completely missed or flatly chose to ignore my earlier comment that I'm inclined towards thinking that God's intervention in men's lives throughout history tends to be rather minimalistic. Perhaps it was understated. Or maybe I just didn't want to draw that much attention to it, for reason of the effort it might take to better explain it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
Bolshevik
Genesis says there's a flood.
There's no scientific evidence of a flood as described. Or snakes eating dirt. Or talking donkeys. Or camels existing in the wrong place and the wrong time.
What makes that error?
Is it Genesis or the reader or the writer in error?
Also, which criteria from PFAL are being applied?
(for anyone besides the usual to reply)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I didn't "just get to say" that and have it be true. I was quoting scripture, which surely you already knew. So your accusation of arrogance is false and unfounded
No, not at all. But if I, in my own inherent weakness and shortness of complete understanding can make good enough sense of it, I am more than convinced that the foolishness of God is wiser than men. Whether or not I could ever communicate to you enough of my own perspective on the matter is another issue altogether. Not that it even matters one iota. Because it seems that you evidently want it completely spelled out for you in black and white. Which, I don't see being completely possible, not even in scripture.
However, I do think there's a thread, woven through scripture, that paints a picture of the invisible on the canvas of believing. Sure, I can undoubtedly describe a great many things that I see to you, and how certain things make plenty of sense if or when viewed from the right perspective. But you will deny that my perspective is valid, or has any chance of being valid, because it's not how you see and think of it, or will allow room for, or if by chance my own communication of (or understanding of) some other part of it is not as complete or as thorough as you think it should be.
Consider this, if you will. Fifty thousand pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are set before you. There are edge pieces, but many of the pieces appear to be similar, or have varying degrees of depth. Some of the pieces look like they ought to fit together, but they don't. Perhaps they are part of some sort of three dimensional puzzle. Or maybe it's pieces to more than one puzzle. Do you pick up a piece of it and say, this piece is a mistake, because it doesn't fit where you think it needs to or should? Or do you put it back in the pile and think, I don't yet have the right piece for this, or the right place for that?
I have, some time ago, reasoned why there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood. And perhaps my perspective on it is far less than perfect. Still, given my overall perspective on life (both as we know it, and as it was probably first in Adam) and sin (even going back that of the father of lies), it is not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporal life currently bestowed upon us.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Surely you knew that I was aware you were citing scripture when you spoke of the foolishness of God being wiser than men. Nonetheless, you don't get to leap from that assertion to the "claim" that my accusation of arrogance is unfounded.
My accusation of arrogance is WELL-founded, and I outlined exactly why. Declaring your own position to be wise and alternative positions to be foolish is arrogant. It is arrogant whether you are doing it of your own spontaneous thought or if you are citing the scribblings of a 2,000-year-old itinerant preacher. The source of your claim is not what made it arrogant. The substance is.
I am not going to sit here and wait for you do spell out exactly why you came to the conclusion that it makes sense there would be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. It's YOUR claim. When you can articulate it, I'll be here. Simply stating that I will not be satisfied with your answer is a dodge. Articulate your answer. Then you can fault me for rejecting it.
I am going to refer back to our earlier discussion on this, however, because I think it is significant:
You just wrote: "it is not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporal life currently bestowed upon us."
In doing so, you are presuming eternal life, which is your prerogative, but there is no evidence that there is any such thing for any species. So to draw conclusions from it is wonderful as a matter of faith, but it does little or nothing to contribute to a discussion with someone who is not convinced there is any such thing. Further, and I've said this before, looking at this temporal life from an eternal perspective opens the door to defending all manner of atrocity, as this temporal life of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternity. So Abel gets murdered. So what? He has eternal life now. Job's kids? Eternal life! That dude who got killed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week? Don't worry, buddy. I know those great big rocks hurt, but look on the bright side: you're going to paradise! Ananias and Sapphira get insta-death penalty for holding back money from the church, but they're born again! So, bygones!
Any atrocity can be dismissed in significance if you look at things from an eternal perspective.
That's not really an answer to the questions we've been raising here. It's a dismissal of them.
Why didn't God warn Abel? Because it makes no difference from the eternal perspective. WOW!
If that's going to be the answer to everything, then this "eternal life" thing had better be rock-solid guarandamteed.
It's not. It's a wishful-thinking claim made by people who struggled to come to terms with the finality of death. Every culture struggles with the question. Every culture concocts a different answer. All claim evidence to support their mutually exclusive answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Outstanding Raf!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html
http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/mistakesingenesis.html
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't believe I have read the skeptic's annotated Bible. I have heard of it. But I don't recall delving into it deeply because I was not a fan of the style.
I am not familiar with the second website at all
Third website is difficult to explain. I don't recall ever seeing that website. However, I do recall reading a book with the same title. Whether there's a connection between the book and the website, I do not know. I can't imagine it was a coincidence.
Trusting to see whether my explanations or observations are worded similarly or identically to the third site. It would certainly not have been intentional, but it is also certain that two people covering the same topic with the same point of view might word things in similar ways. Especially if one of them read the other first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
did you expect it to be so different from the many other things in the Bible that do little or nothing for someone not convinced of eternal life?
I vehemently disagree that this temporal life "of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternal life." Rather, I see it as both essential and formative for what that eternal life can or (forever) will be. And in light of that, is not merely some doorway or path to "defend all manner of atrocity." What it does do, however, is add a substantially different perspective and new possibilities for understanding the why and wherefores of this current life.
I certainly do not see it as the answer to everything.
However, from my perspective, it is without a doubt, absolutely rock-solid, guarandamteed.
I crossed the Rubicon (so to speak) of that in my own life well over 50 years ago (well before I ever knew or heard of twi.) Call it a deeply personal religious experience if you want, it makes no difference whatsoever to me. After once coming face to face with (and more or less accepting) eternal separation from God, the flicker of light that suddenly ignited within me simply cannot be changed or undone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If I were in a bad mood, I would say that if there were one preposition out of place, the whole thing would fall to pieces.
I do not believe the question of what makes it an error is a sincere question. If I say the check is in the mail, and the check is not in the mail, then I am wrong. I am in error. Am I lying? There's no way to know that for sure. Maybe I think it's in the mail, and it's not. But the statement itself is in error.
Whether Genesis is an error or its writer is in error are not mutually exclusive propositions. They could both be in error. Or perhaps only the book is in error. If the reader is in error, then that's not an actual error in Genesis.
An assertion of fact that is untrue, or the presentation of two mutually exclusive facts would qualify as actual errors. Matthew says Jesus's family moved to Nazareth when he was several years old. Luke says his family lived in Nazareth when he was born. They cannot both be correct. That is an actual error.
But honestly, am I the only one who recognizes the insincerity of the question "what makes that error"? It's an assertion of fact that is untrue. This isn't difficult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wraysed2
"They cannot both be correct. That is an actual error."
Yes, I think you've isolated another.
I think Nazareth is the city that doesn't show existence in any book or journal, besides the new testament, until 180 a.d. to 350 a.d.
Edited by Wraysed2more
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee.
And yes, by comparing this life to the next in the precise way that you have to make the precise point you are making does indeed rob this life of value, and it does indeed justify any atrocity in this life as long as the victim has eternal life.
This is how YOU are applying it! Why didn't God warn Abel? Eternal life! That's a HORRIBLE answer! But you can't even see that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've heard that. I've also heard that there was a Nazareth that existed before the time of Jesus's birth, and a Nazareth that existed long after Jesus died, but no Nazareth while he was alive. That strikes me as a little too convenient. I would say that while I am not 100% convinced that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus' life, I think it is more likely that it did. But I wouldn't bet more than a few dollars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Of course it isn't from your perspective. (And I've never said or implied otherwise.)
You make it sound like death by any atrocity is some sort of ticket to eternal life... which is ridiculous.
And you're nuts if you think that's how I applied it.
Given Adam's sin and that man was already expelled from Eden, why think or suppose that man should or would be so closely connected to God?
I do not think or suppose that this life that we currently have was ever designed or intended as being "forever." However, I also do not think or suppose that it needed to finish or end only by death. That is, until Adam failed to preserve the purity of what was to be believed. Instead, he chose to believe the reality of his senses above that which was revealed and known to him spiritually. Part of the reality that he so elevated was the simple fact that this life is (and always was) temporal.
Adam having so irreversibly damaged his own means to effectively perceive the spiritual realities of God's creation, God was then challenged with how to successfully bring spiritually impaired man across the finish line by the end of the appointed time.
If you want to get lost in the weeds of how or why He did or didn't deal with anyone along the way, well... that's certainly a rather popular place to camp out in. Personally, I'm sorta inclined to think his intervention in men's lives throughout history as they "work out their own salvation" tends to be rather minimalistic. If you don't want or need help, neither do you get it. As far as why Cain's offering was refused, seems to be fairly straightforward as far as I can tell. Regardless of the fact that we (as readers) aren't informed until much later, it is made known that without blood there is no remission of sin. Even if, as you purport, Cain didn't know (or forgot) this, perhaps some alternate translation/interpretation of Gen.4:7 would clarify the probability that God reminded him of it, telling him that a sin offering (for Cain) waited for him by the door, and that he had rule over it. But, Cain chose not to believe God, or accept that, and after talking with Able, chose rather to kill him.
Genesis 4:7 (YLT) Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee.
Yes, I repeated myself. Because for some reason it didnt sink in. You seem to think this is a matter of perspective. It's not. You seem to think declarations have as much value as evidence. They do not.
It is obscene that you misrepresent my position. YOU are the one minimizing atrocities by viewing them through eternal-life glasses, not I.
Why think God would be close enough to talk to Abel to talk to him? I can't believe that question is being asked with a straight face. God speaks directly to Cain, whose sacrifice is not accepted. Yet he ignores Abel. And you seriously are asking me why I think God would speak to Abel.
Dude, I can't even.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
After the fall, Genesis mentions five characters. Adam. God speaks to him directly. Eve. God speaks to her directly. The serpent. God speaks to him directly. Cain. God speaks to him directly. Abel. F@#! that guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Cain was the one with the internal struggle. As with Adam. As with Eve. As with the serpent. Abel didn't have a struggle as the other four did.
Just an observation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, but Abel was the one who had God's favor and whose life was in danger. What good is it to have God's favor?
Oh, that's right. Eternal perspective: the magic elixir that answers everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not sure Genesis claims eternal life. Maybe it does. A happy ending story is nice but not that's not normal.
The writers, being likely in the hundreds or thousands of individuals over generations of oral storytelling, probably noted many people's reactions to a goody two-shoes like Abel.
God seams to be a sufficient character for internal dialogue in a story like these.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Eternal life is claimed as an answer to my question by another poster.
Hence my reference.
Thank you for adding your perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Read this carefully. Even if, as I purport ... Never mind what the text actually says and doesn't say. He's going to try to hang this on me.
MAYBE there's an alternate translation of Gen. 4:7. Maybe. (Psst: the burden is on you to find it, not to simply declare the possibility that such a text exists and draw conclusions from it).
Maybe God reminded him. (He didn't. It's not there).
This is the kind of illogic that makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some believers. The Bible means what it says and it says what it means, until it doesn't say what I wish it said. Then I pull out the wishful thinking card. There might maybe be an alternate translation that says what I want it to say...
Meanwhile, your only explanation for why God speaks directly to literally everyone in the Bible except the person who could use a little life-saving advice right about now is basically "whatevs."
On this kind of logic you guarandamtee eternal life? Please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Say what? (Psst: It was in the previous post already... but, perhaps you weren't ready to hear it.)
YLT = Young's Literal Translation (in case you didn't know already.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There's nothing there about blood being required for a sin offering. Not even a hint.
In fact, if you were to take it at his word, it's clear that the problem was his attitude, not the absence of blood.
Moreover, there's zero clarity about what the problem was with Cain. Much like Passing of a Patriarch, it's a criticism of being sinful with zero articulation about what sinful means.
Csin's problem was he did not do well? That's it?
Mind you, you're quoting a verse in which God speaks directly to Cain, nullifying your excuses about his unwillingness to speak to Abel, whose life depends on knowing what Cain will do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Why didn't Gandalf have the eagles take the ring straight to Mount Doom from the get go? Instead he sent two inexperienced weaklings.
Because the story would suck if he sent birds.
If Abel didn't get whacked, what good is this story?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If the author of a novel gave you pertinent information later in the story, you would undoubtedly accept it as being relevant to (or in) the beginning of it. Yet, because you don't believe that God is the sole author responsible for what is written later in the Bible, you can't and won't allow for it here.
In the sense of his "attitude" being a direct reflection and indication of what he did or didn't believe, I'd probably agree. That said, I see the absence of blood in his offering as evidence that he didn't believe [God] that it was required. Let's back it up to ask what the reason might have been for any offering whatsoever. Was God actually in need of anything that man could offer? (I think not.) And if not, then what possible thoughts could have been behind Cain's offering? (Some logical reading between the lines goes a long way towards explaining what might be going on here......... but that's evidently something that most people solely trained at twi were/are either afraid to do and/or plainly suck at.)
And you either completely missed or flatly chose to ignore my earlier comment that I'm inclined towards thinking that God's intervention in men's lives throughout history tends to be rather minimalistic. Perhaps it was understated. Or maybe I just didn't want to draw that much attention to it, for reason of the effort it might take to better explain it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.