Why is that exactly? This isn't stated anywhere. In fact, what it actually says is that God created humans on day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1, then God rested on day 7 at the beginning of chapter 2, then comes the story of Adam's creation. It's nothing more than an assumption that these are two tellings of the same event.
For most of recorded human history, it really didn't matter. The events listed in the creation account were of little consequence. Whether God created all the earth in six days or in 4. There wasn't any reason to even suspect it was any different than how it read, and the overall message of the Bible didn't hinge on it. Today, it does matter. In these modern times, we now understand more about the history of the earth and humanity than ever before.
Modern understanding has proven to be in direct conflict with traditional interpretations of Genesis. This has resulted in many rejecting the Bible as nothing more than mythology, and many others rejecting modern wisdom and scientific progress as false. The creation versus evolution debate has come to be one of the most divisive topics we face.
Many people of faith fight tooth and nail to keep topics like evolution out of the school curriculum, and many others don't see why their children must remain in the dark because some people can't let go of their old religious beliefs. The interpretation that says Adam was the first man in existence is the primary misconception that makes the Bible and modern science seemingly incompatible.
Correcting this one small error takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and plants it firmly into known history. Civilization first began in Mesopotamia over five thousand years ago, and the Sumerians are credited as the inventors. They built the first cities that ever existed, with populations in the tens of thousands made possible through their development of large-scale year-round agriculture.
Throughout the rise of civilization the Sumerians became talented builders. Not long after large-scale agriculture first began, a crude form of writing was developed out of the need to keep records of labor and materials. Another first accredited to the Sumerians. Over the centuries that followed, writing became more advanced and they began to record stories passed down through generations that explained how their people came up with all of these ideas that would forever change the human race.
The funny thing is, these stories didn't give credit to their ancestors. They claim they were taught by immortal human-like gods. The Sumerian and Akkadian tablets where these Sumerian stories are found predate the oldest books of the bible by over a thousand years by our best scholarly estimations. Some of these tablets contain stories that share many very similar components to stories found in early Genesis, including the story of Adam and Eve, the biblical flood, and the confusing of a once universal language.
Numerous tablets from throughout the latter part of the 3rd millennium BC containing these stories have been found all around Mesopotamia, suggesting they were very well known in the region during that time. Because of this, it has become a more and more common assumption that some of the stories found in early Genesis were actually inspired by these ancient tales.
The Akkadians were definitely inspired by this first civilization, considering they basically adopted much of the Sumerian lifestyle, including their mythology. Greek and Roman mythology also contains echoed themes that suggest the roots of their beliefs may have come from the well-known Sumerian beliefs as well. They all speak of multiple immortal gods, human in form, both male and female, who were fallible, moody, and often at odds with each other, and they all speak of the intermingling between these immortal beings and mortal humans, producing demigods and titans.
If the creation of Adam in Genesis happened in an already populated world, given the time frame and location specified, then the humans who eventually became the Sumerians would have been the people that populated the landscape. Other than the obvious correlation between a handful of stories in early Genesis with Sumerian mythology, the Books of Moses are very much unique. The most obvious quality that differentiates them from the others is that in this story there is only one God. The Greeks were fascinated by these books, which is why some of the oldest manuscripts of the Torah that still exist today are written in Greek.
They also had a strong impact on the Romans, who after over a century of Christian persecution legalized Christianity, then a few decades later made it the only legal religion. What's more, the books have continuously been an ever-present influence on the western world in every age since. No other writings from these ancient civilizations can make that claim. There are nearly as many in the non-religious, secular, agnostic, or atheist category as there are Muslims, making them the third largest group behind Christians and Muslims.
One reason for this is because it has been confirmed that those events in early Genesis did not happen. The last time the entire planet was covered with water was over three billion years ago when land did not yet exist, let alone humans. And we have confirmed genetically that, while every human alive today does actually share a common ancestor, this ancestor existed in Africa tens of thousands of years before the events of Genesis. Now, we do. The first order of business is to establish the proper context. What was the state of the Earth during the time frame in which early Genesis is set?
We now know that by 10, BC homo sapiens had already populated the planet and had over the course of many generations established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom, which is exactly what the humans created in Genesis 1 were commanded to do:. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
We also know that humans in this same region were the first to use the seeds in seed baring vegetation to grow food starting around 9, BC, which matches up with the illustration in Genesis 1 of God teaching humans. Where these same verses also state that the animals will use these plants for food as well, only with the humans does it specifically talk about the seeds that then bare other seed-bearing plants:.
They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. Genesis And we also know through climatological evidence that this same region matched the description given at the beginning of Genesis 2 from around 6, BC due to the dramatic shift in climate that transformed much of the region from lush green lands to desert.
An aridification event often referred to as the 8. No no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. But where the humans and everything else in Genesis 1 were specifically told what to do, in Genesis 2 Adam was only told what not to do: He was to eat from any tree but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.
In fact, the whole theme of the Adam and Eve story has to do with them exhibiting their own individual free will. For instance, one of the very first things it says God did after placing Adam in the garden was to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The humans created in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to realize.
They were told to:. So how could Adam, Eve, and their descendants be expected to accomplish these things considering how capable and willing they were to disobey? Reconsidering things with the idea that Adam was not the first human, but rather was the first human capable of behaving contrary to God's will in an already populated world of humans yields many interesting possibilities both throughout the remainder of the bible itself, as well as far outside of it.
Within the Bible, some of the more cryptic and confusing verses in the chapters to follow begin to make much more sense if the region was already populated when Adam was created. Like the unnamed "others" that Cain expressed concern about in chapter 4.
The concern God is validated by somehow "marking" him to protect him from harm. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me. It also puts a whole new spin on the first few verses of chapter 6, those which talk about the "sons of God" finding the "daughters of humans" beautiful and having children by them.
This comes right in the middle of its explanation for why the flood was necessary. It even goes on to explain that humans are mortal and live less than a hundred and twenty years, contrary to the hundreds of years it says Adam and his descendants lived in chapter 5.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,. And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. This should be obvious, but many still hold onto the belief that the flood completely covered the entire Earth. Even in the traditional context this would not make sense as the flood occurred just 10 generations after Adam. So Adam's descendants could not have populated more than a small portion of the Earth.
There would be no need in that sense to flood the entire planet. Not to mention the fact that the authors of the bible would have no sense of what global really means as the entirety of the Earth from their perspective was the land they lived in. But even beyond that reasoning, there are a couple of subtle clues that tell us the flood wasn't a global phenomenon that wiped out everything that lived. The first comes at the end of chapter four when the author explains that three of Cain's descendants were the "fathers of all those who: lived in tents and herded cattle, played stringed instruments, made metal tools.
And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who handle the harp and organ.
- The Fabulous Trashwagon (The Last Open Road Book 2)!
- Soup For One.
- A Day in The Life?
- Great Hair After 50: Hip hairstyles, best products for healthy hair, coloring secrets, whether (and how) to go gray, managing fine or frizzy hair, and solutions for thinning hair and hair loss.
- Issues in Christianity.
- The Best Little Book On Indian Consulting Culture?
- Do Pets Go to Heaven?: Now There's Evidence You Can Believe in.
And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron; and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. These descendants come seven generations after Cain, which is the same number of generations Methuselah was from Seth. Methuselah died the same year as the flood, probably in it. Specifically stating that these descendants "fathered' or "instructed" anyone would be totally pointless if Cain's descendants and everyone else were wiped out in the flood. Plus, it's clear these verses are referring to individuals the intended reader is familiar with, so they couldn't be people who hadn't existed since the flood.
The other clue can be seen in the only two biblical mentions of the 'Nephilim'. One before the flood:. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim , and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them. Of course, simply proving the flood wasn't actually global doesn't do much considering the whole purpose of the flood was to wipe out the "wicked" element that had risen in humanity. A localized flood would hardly accomplish that in this already populated world scenario. But, if Adam was the introduction of free will, and wickedness was only possible through free will, then a local flood of the Mesopotamian valley would be all it would take.
In fact, that valley, which is a geological equivalent of a storm drain, would be the perfect location to place an element as potentially dangerous as free will. In this modern age, many will surely find this a bit much to swallow. But in the context of the evolution of life as we understand it, the appearance of a new species of humans with free will and extended lifespans would be no more of a leap than the change from single-celled to multi-celled organisms or the adaptations that made crawling up onto land from the sea possible. Even in the progression of the Homo genus, there were large leaps forward from one species to the next.
However, if an even more advanced species did actually appear just a few thousand years ago, they're certainly not here anymore. Of course, according to the story, they were all washed away by a large flood. Mass extinctions play a crucial role throughout the evolutionary history of life. In that context, the flood was merely the last of many edits that shaped life as we know it today.
Even if any physical remains that could potentially confirm this theory had been washed out to sea by a large flood, certainly the existence of beings like this would have left some sort of lasting impression, especially if they existed for over sixteen hundred years in a region populated by humans. You might expect to see rapid advancements in intellectual and technological capabilities, like what appears to have happened with the Sumerians and the Egyptians.
Or you might expect to see their influence reflected in the mythology written by these ancient civilizations, like what can be seen in the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman stories: Immortal beings who lived the equivalent of ten mortal lifespans who were exceptionally wise and knowledgeable in agricultural practices, who were prone to human emotion, who bred with mortal humans and created beings of both bloodlines, then disappeared.
Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites. The 'sons of God' are Seth's line. It specifically says it in Luke 3 when it says Jesus is the son of Joseph, son of Heli Sons of God could be the line of Seth, but it wouldn't explain how interbreeding causes physical mutations. That line of thinking is why the Mormons claim that they 'used to believe' funny the official stance didnt change until Cains curse is that he was given immortality and turned black so he can wander about like a demon bothering people, and is why black people were thought of as cursed because they were his descendents.
I love when people cherry pick verses. Like the scores of people who believe every word of the bible means exactly what it says, and yet gloss over passages such as those of Jesus who was literal maybe half the time. I thought the ancient Jews and Jesus' disciples were just dense and simple minded for the longest time when really, it was just God trying to draw people who truly loved and fervently sought to understand his truth.
Then we become like the legalistic pharisees and we know what Jesus thought of those guys. Yet here we are, parroting what other people tell us what the bible means, cherry picking what they do or don't want to be literal. I never could get on board with the idea that Cain's line was unrighteous and that Seth's was righteous. What about Cain's line made them so different? Because Cain killed Abel? And the other issue with that is that Gen 6 describes the "daughters of humans" as being "mortal" compared to the sons of God and only living years while Gen5 describes Adam's line sons of God as living for centuries.
Jeremy--I like how you attempt to separate the sons of god, from daughters of men, as being totally different. I must tell you tho, your missing the truth. Sons of God were clearly Adam's bloodline thru Seth, The daughters of men were "men" and there daughters, from Cain's line, which was an "unrighteous" bloodline, Seth's bloodline was "righteous" Its so easy to understand!
Look at Genesis 6. It describes two groups, the 'sons of God', and the 'daughters of humans'. Humans it describes as "mortal" and says only live years. The previous chapter described Adam's kin as living for centuries. Genesis 6 comes right before the flood and explains that these 'sons of God' married and had children through the "mortal" 'daughters of humans'. This is why the lifespans decreased so rapidly. They were intermingling with "mortal" humans. Their offspring, the Nephilim, still lived for centuries, just not as many.
Hopefully you see this. I've kind of leaned towards this belief for quite some time. The one thing bugging me though, that I can't seem to find a reasoning for, is why did the ages of mankind start falling so drastically after the flood? And if this long life "gene" for lack of a better word, was in Adam's seed, why wouldn't there still be a lineage of people to this day that live way longer than everyone else? Would mix breeding with those not in your blood line cause this trait to slowly be lost? Just curious your opinion. I also find it fascinating when you compare the ages and time lines surrounding a flood with the Sumerians, their Kings list has people living well into there 's and 1,s of years.
I feel like it's possible that these King's were indeed the Nephilim spoken of.
- Don Stewart :: Did the Flood Cover the Entire Earth??
- The Mythology of the First Civilization?
- Jerry Anns Place - Built from the land, By her own hand, The footprint of a Dream.
- Gullivers Travels retold for little folk by Agnes Grozier Herbertson.
- Nothing Like a Dame: My Autobiography;
- Was Adam the First Human?.
They shared that DNA trait from Adam. Them being of the chosen lineage would make them great picks to become Kings and leaders. Especially if everyone else around you is living 80 years or so. It's just awesome to see that our history of earth, and even science doesn't have to be contradictory when applied to the Bible, but can actually be backed up and supported of sort. These tales of great powerful immortal like people could very well have been this lineage. Anyway, great read. God Bless. I don't think it's accurate to say they were the first spiritual people.
All life has a spirit. That's what makes it a living thing. What's illustrated through the garden story as unique to Adam and Eve is the free will to behave contrary to God's will. I do agree. Adem and Eve wasn't the first people on earth. They were the first spiritual poeple on earth. Its all about logic. Where dit Adem and ave children got wife's if there wasnt any ather people. Not logic. You too cool you are. I like that quote from the Matrix. Give man "Free Will" they end up corrupting every biblical teaching that was meant to hold us together, but the real Magic is when we see them teachings work for real in life "Especially the teachings of Jesus" It beats all other ideologies people have ever come up with down through the ages.
I agree. It's all about restoring what was lost. God gave us free will through Adam and Eve and is now giving us the opportunity to experience it and make our own decision for ourselves whether or not we want to be a part of it. I agree context is important. And I agree Sumer was the result of Babel.
Do Pets Go to Heaven?: Now There's Evidence You Can Believe in by Dennis Callen
Post flood Sumer. There were a people there in that region before as well. And like before where Cain came in and influenced the first phase of Sumer, the people scattered at Babel arrived in the region and did the same thing. Spawning the second phase of Sumer. That influence, first from Cain, then from the sons of Noah and their families, was free will. It's altered the way humanity exists on this planet ever since.
The time of the Sumerians were after the flood. Adam and Eve were already been created by God. The Sumerian were the result of the rebellion in the Tower of Babel. When God confused their tongue, those that could understand each other, they went as groups to settle. One of these groups called themselves the Sumer, Sumerians. They were not the first man and women nor the first civilization. This article has many twisted issues. Not knowing the when, where, will take the bible out of contents. This is the conflict I see here. Assuming is not truth or facts. God is God whether the Sumerians publish their book first or not.
God is the Creator, He created man and women to have fellowship with them. When they sinned God brought redemption when He sent His son to die and ascend to heaven where He sits in heavenly places. The bible is the inspired word of God that teaches the true hope and final triumph for those who accept Him as their savior. In the bible we learn that God said, not to commit idolatry, the act of worshipping man made gods. The book of Enoch and others were not added to the bible because it has nothing to do with redemption. There were many other books written but not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
God is interested for individuals to find their way back to Him to restore what was lost through sin in Eden, man lost His image. There is a place for believer and also for unbelievers the choice depends in each individual. I pray you make the right decision. He already paid the price for you. Animals do not have free will. Free will isn't the same as intelligence.
Free will is what makes humans an anomaly in the natural world. I think a quote from the Matrix actually puts very well what I'm speaking about Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure. He's exactly right. Animals, much like humans before the events of Genesis and the birth of civilization, live in harmony with the natural world. We modern humans bend the world around us to our will.
That's free will. That's what sets us apart from all other life on Earth. It very likely would have stopped Cain if God had told him directly that the punishment was sevenfold. Doesn't say how Cain killed Able, but I can imagine it was awful since blood was spilled. Probably something akin to how Able slaughtered his sacrifices.
I think you might be mixing free will with intelligence. Do animals have free will or merely instincts they must follow? So if they would have killed Cain without the mark, why did they let him build a city? Scripture doesn't say harm anywhere in regards to Cain. He said they would kill him, and gods mark only activates when he is killed. It's just as likely they would have just beat him up and kicked him out rather than let him rule over them. Doesn't say he took over Enosh, or got it after marrying his wife, but was rather the founder of the very first city.
While I do agree with your theory, I am playing devils advocate as I see what I think are a few flaws skeptics might latch onto. The only scenario in which a mark would have been effective would have been where there was no free will. If Able were marked, would that have stopped Cain? Presumably not. Humans without free will could very well have harmed Cain I think. Harm and killing is a common occurrence among animals in the animal kingdom.
Gen1 naturally evolved humans have been making and using weapons for , years. A new creature, like Cain, in their environment could very well have led to Cain being harmed. Gaton, when you say saint, you dont mean Mormons, do you? They treat Cain like an immortal bigfoot bogeyman type person who reveals himself to and pesters them from time to time. They also use him as a reason why it's okay to be racist to black people because Cain was apparently turned into a black man according to their founders.
Wasn't until they retracted their belief that being black was a curse. If you mean one of the Catholic saints, well, unless it was one of Jesus' desciples, Paul, or one of the seventy who directly received the power of the holy spirit in Acts I would take their claims with a grain of salt.
Not saying it couldn't have happened, but I'm cynical of it. Well, the naturally evolved humans had no free will and had to obey every command of god, no? No mark would have been necessary as they wouldn't have had the ability to choose to kill Cain if God so willed it. God would have no qualms whatsoever forcing people who cannot choose for themselves to leave Cain alone.
Only people who could make the choice to kill or not kill someone out of revenge would need a mark warning them to stay away. If there were more of Adams descendents alive, the mark would have been necessary to convince them to leave him alone. Only people who knew Cain would have wanted him dead as well. Why should people he didn't know, who have never heard of him, and didn't live on the land of his father, care? Cain, Adam, and Eve have all proven capable of disobeying God. So how can a mark ensure his safety?
The problem with that, if the population was made up of Cain and Abel's extended family, why the mark on Cain? Wouldn't they all already know who Cain is? Why mark him to keep him safe? Most people think Cain killed Abel at a young age, but according to several saint visions Cain killed abel when was at middle age. So Cain and Abel had fathered several dozens of children, and Adam and Eve fathered dozen of children also, so it's highly probably that Earth was well populated by the time of the first murder.
I'm not Hebrew so why should I adhere to Jewish Levitical law? Are you murdering everyone you come across who you know is committing adultery or who is a homosexual or habitually disobeys their parents? We who accept Jesus' sacrifice are free from the law of sin and death. Not from all, or even a tittle of the law, but some interpretations of it. So I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate from your queries. Yet since we're throwing around New Testament chapter and verse, I shall rebut with the following:. Romans Or do you not know, brethren for I am speaking to those who know the law , that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
All scripture, yes, but not disjointed verses cherry picked from all corners of the bible and used to support a personal worldview. I may answer your question myself, but to be honest, only a fool who don't want real answers would ask dumb questions like that. That passage you quoted starts with They are fulfilled. The requirements laid out regarding the sabbath and what to eat and all of that. Till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from from the torah till all be fullfilled. Are you eating swines flesh, are you keeping pagan holydays?
Oop, made bit of a mistake there. It's based on some writings supposedly found in the dead sea scrolls telling of Paul's being banned by someone thought to have been James. But I got my biblical figures mixed up a bit there, combining him with when John who was an apostle and other Messianic Jews were kicked out of a supposedly Christian church by a leader named Diotrephes in 3 John: Test the claims of any institution.
If they're true, they ought to be able to substantiate any claims made, or questions asked. Keeping 1 John in mind, it's even more important to do that with all these various institutions, ALL claiming to be a prophet in one form or another, while ALL contradicting themselves at the same time. That's interesting about Paul.
Do you have anything you can refer me to to read more about Paul's excommunication? I appreciate the discussion guys, and particularly appreciate input like the referral to Acts 15, Antonio. That's exactly the kind of thing that fascinates me. I'm woefully under-familiar with the NT. I am a christian, but I've never claimed to be a good one. I feel its important to periodically make it clear that despite how I may come off in this type of discourse, it is not my objective to argue or "be right" and I'm not doing what I do to "win souls" or convince anyone of my way over theirs.
I just enjoy talking about and thinking about these things. I want to be corrected if I'm wrong about something. But I'm not going to just swallow every argument given. I'm going to wrestle with it. Poke at it. Question it. You might have to convince me I'm wrong. But I'm totally open to being wrong. I just blurt out what I honestly think. If something I think is true isn't, I want to know about it. I want to fix it. Get it right. So I always appreciate when someone participates in these discussions that can bring some wisdom and knowledge in with them.
Putting Institutions to one side, There's a lot of "Individuals" out there that are doing a Great Job, who are a Great example to many. As i said, i agree with you, but one thing that makes the message of Jesus harder to accept is the warning Jesus gave about "False Prophets" in Matthew Them days are GONE now, and that is really odd considering the amount Religions, Institutions, even Idividuals all claiming to be Gods prophet, while at the same time contradicting other prophets. In the Old Testament one of the biggest problems the people had to deal with, as well as themselves, was "False Prophets" the reason they were there was for similar reasons above, but MOSTLY to make it harder to recognise the genuine Prophets God sent.
When Jesus said many will come in my name Matthew 24 he knew none could literally claim to be him, since none of them could raise the dead, but they will claim to be his spokesman nonetheless, "In Jesus name for example" They come in various disguises, that's why Jesus went into some details as to what to watch out for. After the disciples seen the resurrected Jesus as well as others, that's when thay really started to proclaim Christ as the Saviour to the world.
God can hear the prayers and help any individual whatever Institution they belong to, but there's Absolutely NO evidence that God is using the Institution itself. I'm not saying I agree with the interpretation of those verses. You asked who said it, and I delivered passages that back up the hypothesis. Timothy being the primary passage of reference for people's belief that every word in the bible, even when translated to other versions, is coming straight from God's telepathic lips into the minds of the authors.
Just wanted to clarify why i mentioned Acts 15 in the first place. It wasn't to support God was using any Institution, but just to explain the early church writers filtered out any false Pseudepigrapha from entering the biblical Canon. That claim is totally untrue. And that was to assist the Jewish people accepting or transferring over from Judaism to Christianity after the death of Jesus. Anyone making that claim only does so to support God is using a Similar Governing Body to direct the affairs of their religious Institution.
Paul knew very well as the Council did in Vs11 "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are". Galatians Also makes reference to that Council or "Governing Body" but in a respectful way again. In all this Paul was very respectful because he knew, the Gospel Message ulimately belonged to God for the benefit of all people. Therefore any institution claiming to have the soul Truth and that we must be a part of their group for Salvation is in reality a Trap, because all Salvation comes, and is Centered on the "Work of Jesus" based on our own "personal choice" to put faith in Christ.
Any church or place of worship we choose after that, has to help and assist us along the way, but if we feel trapped by them, then that's a sign that our faith is not really our own at all, but rather dependant on their institution. That's a dangerous spiritual situation to be in, which can also be open to various abuses. And though God is not a God of disorder but of peace, and that all things should be done in a fitting and orderly way, dose NOT support God is using any Institution either.
Our faith, "If we choose" has to be a "personal" one Centered on the work of Jesus. Today the word "word" is synonymous with the bible. But is that what they're talking about when they speak of God's word? God's words are what shaped the Earth and all life on it. These are the words of God in my mind when I read this. God's words are one and the same as natural law. God's word will not pass just as gravity will not pass. I think you can agree with what Paul is saying and agree with what I'm saying. I think it's evident the bible is something more than a mere fiction constructed over centuries by 50 different people.
If human history has demonstrated anything over the millennia, its that humans can't put together anything really lasting. But there's a big difference between recognizing the value of the bible and treating every word as the inerrant word of God. Just for now, when people say God's infallible word, what they really mean is their understanding and interpretation of some passages are infallible.
It's people that's fallible, including their interpretations to a whole lot of passages from the bible If that wasn't the case we'd all be in agreement, and nobody would have speculated on dates for Jesus return which was the driving force for "some" now claiming "absolute truth". Quite surprised really. John does that count? Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away Mark is another. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
I believe it would have been the 'apostle' Paul who said the last one, which everyone uses to support that claim. Very first pope of the catholic church, reportedly. The early pre catholic church also excommunicated Paul, a man who claimed to be an apostle without ever having met Jesus, whose claim to have seen a vision holds no more weight than Constantinople's whose vision said to kill in Jesus name, before he went and did his thing so.. Closest other reference iirc comes from 2 peter , but that refers to interpreting scripture, primarily prophecy.
I don't really know how to tell if any of our biblical books are the gods honest infallible truth, but I know how to tell which ones most certainly are not. To be quite frank, Paul could have been full of bull for all we truly know. This is where that whole 'faith' thing comes into play. If God could let hundreds of thousands of Christians be martyred to test faith, theres no real logical reason why he wouldn't let some people pretending to follow his son shove some stuff in a book and only have their word as to its veracity.
If a 'book' contradicts the Tanakh, or more importantly the Torah, then said writings such as Enoch and Jubilees which are believed to have been written around the first couple centuries B. To address another comment, many biblical translations of Genesis have a conditional component.
Not only that, but the bible is chock full of idioms and figures of speech. Jesus used them more than anyone. Ever heard the term 'I dont want to just be alive, I want to live'? Plus Jesus said he is the living water, that through him people would find true life. Also the bible is only concerned with the biblical line leading to salvation. So using Genesis to validate Adam and Eve being the very first homo sapiens can come under attack from a myriad of biblical as well as secular directions. Basically I think the bible is exactly what it needs to be and accomplishes exactly what its meant to.
Just the way it's remained such a central ever-present influence throughout human history shows me its value and impact. And I believe the laws were necessary to achieve God's ultimate goal. Breeding Jesus. All of those laws were specific to a God who's controlling breeding of a specific line. Once Jesus was bread of this line, it is through Jesus as that salvation is achieved. The goal has been reached. The OT laws are no longer necessary. They did what they were intended to do.
God could show Himself and tell us all He's the God of the universe and the bible is His word. But then it wouldn't be a choice to choose Him. To seek Him. Where is it said the bible is the word of God? It seems to me this is a position posited by organized religion. God is what they claim the power behind their institution resides, and in any and all matters related to God the bible is the decider. So every word of the bible must be affirmed to be unquestionable. So when the bible is referred to to justify the ruling of the religious institution, it was counted as the authority.
The words of God. Straight from God's lips through this bible is the direction and the decisions of this institution. To maintain that leverage, they savagely punished anyone found to be a heretic. They were the authority, they were the ones to decide how to decipher it, and they were the ones to administer the punishment for being a heretic if you disagreed or dared read it another way. In my mind, unless it was in some way stated directly by God, I find treating the bible as the infallible word of God as being exceedingly reckless.
Also on the point of "inspired text" explanation. And "humans deciding what is and isn't inspired by God". It's about the "Council of Jerusalem" and the work of Paul and Barnabas. And how the Council resolved a "longstanding issue" that needed settling once and for all. If the Council can resolve DEEP longstanding issues like these knowing they're just men, I don't think they would have any issue at all deciding what was Canonical and what wasn't.
Basically the issue was whether the "Gentiles" or Nations outside the Jewish faith were required to keep the to the OT Laws or not? Vs1 was the begining of the issue that threw Gentile believers into confusion. Paul knew very well the Gentiles weren't required to keep OT laws, and that if Circumcision was required then all the OT Laws would be binding as well. The point is, after much discussion and disputing by the apostles and elders "In a respectful way" Acts makes the point.
And Verse 11 "NO! Also after deciding what "If any Laws" were binding on the Gentile? And also want to say, if them 4 decrees or Prohibitions was all that was required for salvation then thats not enough anyway since even the 4 decrees are covered by the FAITH of Jesus. Them decrees were issued for other reasons, other than binding Laws. The Bible writers guided by the spirit would NEVER allow any other books pseudepigrapha to destroy the work of God, because that work was centred on the work of Jesus himself. The question is? What other way could God communicate with man, other than the OT Laws that man couldn't keep up with?
- No one had to die for our sins. | ulexojulewyq.tk.
- Guide Do Pets Go To Heaven? Now theres biblical proof you can believe in (revised and expanded).
- Bible Search.
- Universalism and the Bible.
And the death of Jesus? RE: "inspired text" explanation. And "humans deciding what is and isn't inspired from God". First of all i would like to say this situation is very similar to "Cains". What prevented anyone from killing Cain? It may appear it's men who decided what was to be included in the Bible, but that's not the case. It took generations for the Bible to be written by different authors, and all biblical discoveries support the accouts that happened in the Bible as well, therefore adding further proof that the Bible authors were in agreement with Gods intended message for us.
Any claims of "truth" or revelations by outsiders needed to be tested by believers who knew what the overall message of God was. Also as time past, it became more and more clear which books were actually inspired by God and which wasn't. For that i would say Men deciding what is "Canonical" is actually a very good thing, when guided by the spirit, otherwise what do we have? In the last years alone many institutions have based there religion on the findings and revelations of ONE man, and when we look at their doctrines, they're just as "fantastical" as the "Book of Enoch" itself with a number of their teachings outright contradicting the Bible as well.
Being realistic, if some books of the Bible shouln't even be there, then the whole "inspration" of the bible is wrong as well in the fact that God allowed his intended message to be distorted. The early Bible writers knew what was to be included in the Bible and what wasn't, or let's say, they filtered, ruled out other writings which were NOT intended for the Bible. All this needed time to be accomplish, Using mans "Free Will" again guided by the spirit. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them" Peter was hardly going to accept the "Book of Enoch" destructive heresies, the very things he warned about Even if he did quote from that book, Peter may have thought, even the foolish sometimes come out with the exceptional truth.
Maybe the Enemy was trying to misdirect? But peter used it as further evidence to his advantage? That principle would have applied when deciding the Canon of the Bible as well. The bible does say she Eve is the mother of all living Humans , Adam was the first man Human then Eve Was made from one of his ribs and there we have the mother of all living Humans. Give me a little while, will explain how i see that whole "inspired text" explanation. I don't follow my heart in these matters. I stick strictly to logic and evidence. As hard as it can be to actually accomplish, I want no part of my ego in any of this and try to ensure that's the case.
I agree Jesus is the only way and that none are capable on their own. There can only be one DNA code for the universe. We, while living inside the universe's body, behave according to our own code. We don't work in harmony with this environment. It is possible to get into harmony with the universe and its DNA code.
But you have to willfully choose it. We're not made like everything else in the universe is, inherently pre-programmed to work in harmony within the body of the universe. We've been given our own agency. We've been made creators who add things to God's universe that are not of God's making. It's an exceedingly powerful capability to have been given and requires wisdom to wield it responsibly. That's something that I think fascinates me the most about the bible.
Or, more specifically, the "books of Moses". The first 5. The book of Enoch is a good example. All around the time of Jesus there was a lot of trying to figure out what they were and what they meant. Like the Pharasees. Dedicated to studying it. Writings like the book of Enoch give great insight into the minds and the imaginings of the people of that time in that culture.
And just like today, sometimes liberties were taken in an attempt to connect the dots. Jeremy, I was just going to write myself that Enoch reads like fanfiction, lol. Not only that, but bad kaballah high fantasy fan fiction with discrepencies and contradictions galore. For instance circumcision wasn't a thing until Abraham yet it was prevalent according to the book of Enoch.
Its style is pedantic and simple with far too many absolutes in its prophecies. That is bit of a cop out. The bible contains more than just the path to salvation. The ways of god are not unknowable; with research and logic they can be uncovered. Research shouldn't make you lose faith, otherwise the bible wouldn't advise to examine it daily and uncover its secrets. Only real discrepency I found was in the creation account, stating the earth was made before the sun. Yet from a vision standpoint, seeing the universe made from earth it would seem that first came light, then came the sun by the compound cover in the sky.
Within the murky yellow orange haze it would seem light was everywhere until the great oxygenation event of 2. Or you could just say gods presence was light enough if you've absolutely gotta have a supernatural, non-scientific origin for everything. Plant fossils point to a little over a billion years now, though only a few short years ago it was believed the first plants only arrived almost million years ago. Couple years before that in the 's it was Heck, about a hundred years ago it was believed by the scientific community that the universe was infinite and always existed, so..
Moses , a Hebrew raised by Pharaoh's daughter , one day encounters an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. He slays the Egyptian and flees Egypt. God hears the plight of the Israelites and sends Moses back to Egypt to bring them out of that land to Canaan. At one point during the journey back, God intends to kill Moses, but he is saved by his wife Zipporah Exodus Moses asks Pharaoh to release the Israelites, but Pharaoh responds by demanding more work from them.
Moses repeats his request several times as the Plagues of Egypt afflict the Egyptians, but God makes Pharaoh refuse until the tenth plague, when God kills all firstborn people and cattle in Egypt, apart from those of the Israelites, who are protected. The Israelites are allowed to leave, but God again changes Pharaoh's mind, and an army is sent after them. God saves them from the army by drowning it in the Red Sea. These laws include thou shalt not kill , eye for an eye and laws about slavery and other things. Capital punishment is prescribed for some crimes. Animal sacrifice in the form of burnt offerings is mentioned, and it is prescribed that an ox that kills a person is to be stoned.
The Code states that "And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. The Israelites break their promise by worshiping the Golden Calf. God is angered by this and intends to "consume them", but Moses persuades him not to do so. Moses is also angered, and he breaks two stone tablets with God's writing. On Moses' command, the Levites kill about three thousand people Exodus God has Moses make new stone tablets, and gives Moses the Ritual Decalogue , which states in part "Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest they be for a snare in the midst of thee.
But ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and ye shall cut down their Asherim " Exodus The Book of Leviticus sets out detailed rules for animal sacrifice. The Holiness code , Leviticus , sets out a list of prohibitions, and the punishments for breaking them. Punishments include execution, sometimes by stoning or burning.
God orders Moses to count "all that are able to go forth to war in Israel" Numbers 1. Moses prays, and the fire abates. God hears Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses, and punishes Miriam with leprosy. The Israelites reach the border of Canaan, but due to reports from spies they refuse to enter, and wish to return to Egypt. In Numbers 15, a man is found working on the Sabbath. God orders him to be killed and he is stoned. Korah and a group of men rebel against Moses and Aaron. The Isralites "murmur" about this, and God punishes them with a plague Numbers He does and they do.
Moses prays for the people, and God helps them Numbers The Israelites conquer the cities of Sihon , king of the Amorites, and they "smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him remaining; and they possessed his land. Balaam later prophesies on the future of the Israelite's enemies Numbers Some Israelites commit harlotry with women in Moab , and sacrifice to their gods. God is angered, orders executions and sends a plague, but "the main guilt is Midian's and on Midian fell the vengeance" Numbers 25 and God orders Moses to "Harass the Midianites , and smite them", and to again count "all that are able to go forth to war in Israel" Numbers They take captive the women and children, and take all cattle, flocks and goods as loot, and burn all cities and camps.
When they return to Moses, he is angered, and commands "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" Numbers God tells Moses "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places.
And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for unto you have I given the land to possess it. And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so will I do unto you" Numbers Deuteronomy begins with a review of previous stories, including a battle between the Israelites and the Amorites Deuteronomy , and the destruction of Rephaim by the Ammonites with Yahweh's help , along with similar other displacements. Similar treatment, at Yahweh's command, was given to the people under Og king of Bashan.
Similar threats of destruction for disobedience, or idolatry more specifically, can be found in Deuteronomy 6, 8, On the other hand, God promises that if his people obey him he will give them victory in fighting their enemies in Deuteronomy 6, Deuteronomy provides legislation to protect perpetrators of unintentional homicide from revenge killings 4, The Ten Commandments prohibit murder Deuteronomy 13 insists that those who advocate the worship of other deities must be killed, and that a town that worships other deities must be entirely exterminated, including its livestock.
Deuteronomy 14 forbids self-mutilation. Deuteronomy 17 punishes anyone who worships any deity or feature of the natural world with stoning to death, and likewise imposes the death penalty on anyone who disobeys the judicial decision of a priest. Deuteronomy 19 imposes the death penalty for premeditated murder, establishes cities of refuge, and also imposes the lex talionis : "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" limiting vengeance verse 21, NRSV.
The Canaanites, on the other hand, are to be completely exterminated 20 exempting only the fruit trees. It also mandates the stoning to death of rebellious children. Deuteronomy 22 orders the killing of women who cannot prove that they were virgins on their wedding night, and of both the man and woman when a man sleeps with another man's wife. It also mandates the death penalty for a man who has sexual relations with a betrothed virgin, and of the virgin if she does not cry out for help when raped. Deuteronomy 24 imposes the death penalty for the kidnapping of a fellow Israelite, and forbids putting parents to death for crimes committed by their children, and vice versa.
Deuteronomy 28 contains blessing and curses: blessing, including the defeat of Israel's enemies, if Israel obeys; and curses if Israel disobeys.
Living Commentary Bible Software
These curses include disease, famine, defeat and death in warfare, insanity, abuse and robbery, enslavement, and cannibalism due to extreme hunger. Similar threats appear in the following chapter 29 and in Deuteronomy God commands Joshua to take possession of Canaan Joshua 1. The Jericho-woman Rahab aids two Israelite spies, and she and her family are promised to be spared in the coming conquest. The city is burned, and apart from Rahab's family, every person, ox, sheep and donkey is killed Joshua 6. A second attempt, advised by God, succeeds.
The city is set on fire and all the inhabitants are killed Joshua 8. Several kings ally together to fight the Israelites. The people of Gibeon , learning of the city's destruction, tricks the Israelites into a peace-treaty. God attacks Joshua's enemies with hailstones, the Israelites are victorious, and the enemy kings are captured. More kings gather to fight the Israelites. The Israelites defeat and kill them all. Joshua 11 commands the hamstringing of horses. Joshua finishes most of the conquest of Canaan, with the exception of Gibeon and possibly some Canaanites and Amelakites: "For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that they might be utterly destroyed, that they might have no favour, but that they might be destroyed, as the LORD commanded Moses.
No one had to die for our sins.
The tribe of Manasseh is given cities with Canaanites they can't drive out, but Joshua tells them that they will be able to Joshua In Joshua 20, God tells Joshua to assign Cities of Refuge , so that "the manslayer that killeth any person through error and unawares may flee thither; and they shall be unto you for a refuge from the avenger of blood. The Book of Judges contains a number of violent incidents. There is a graphic description of the assassination of the Moabite King Eglon , who defecates while rolls of his fat suck in the blade used to kill him Judges The Levite dismembers her, and has parts of her body distributed across Israel to inform people about what happened Judges The Philistines attack and are defeated at Mizpah.
Saul is made king of Israel and wars with many enemies. Samuel kills the captured Agag , king of the Amalekites. David , anointed king in secret 1 Samuel 16 , comes into Saul's service and "loved him greatly". David becomes popular, witch makes Saul fear him and plot his death.
David and Saul's daughter Michal wish to marry, and Saul asks for a dowry of one hundred foreskins of the Philistines. David delivers two hundred, and becomes the king's son-in-law 1 Samuel Saul again wishes David dead, but they are reconciled by Saul's son Jonathan.
War comes again, David is victorious. Saul again wants to kill David, and he flees with help from his wife. Saul searches for him and slays the inhabitants of the city Nob for aiding David 1 Samuel David defeats the Philistines at Keilah , then flees the city pursued by Saul 1 Samuel David and Saul reconcile. David seeks refuge with Achish , king of Gath , and claims he is raiding Judah but is actually raiding and killing in other places 1 Samuel The Philistines begins a war against Saul.
David's wives Ahinoam and Abigail are taken in a raid on Ziklag , but he rescue them 1 Samuel The men of Israel flee before the Philistines, and three of Saul's sons are slain. Saul asks his armour-bearer to kill him, but is refused, so he takes his own life. The armour-bearer also takes his own life.
Saul's body is beheaded and fastened to a city-wall by the victorious Philistines, but it is retaken by inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead 1 Samuel A man tells David of Saul's death and that he himself killed Saul. David has him killed 2 Samuel 1. A long war starts between David and Saul's son Ish-bosheth 2 Samuel 3. David demands and is granted the return of his first wife Michal, despite the public grief of her new husband Palti.
Two men assassinate Ish-bosheth, and David has them killed 2 Samuel 4. David wars victoriously with the Philistines. While transporting the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, a man called Uzzah carelessly touches it and is killed by God 2 Samuel 6. David defeats and plunder several enemies, and "executed justice and righteousness unto all his people. The children of Ammon mistreat David's emissaries, and is defeated by his army 2 Samuel In order to make Bathsheba his wife, David successfully plots the death of her husband.
This displeases God, and David is told that "the sword shall never depart from thy house. She then gives birth to Solomon. David conquers and plunders the city Rabbah 2 Samuel David's son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar. Absalom , her full brother, in return has him killed 2 Samuel Absalom conspires and revolts against David. Absalom is finally defeated and dies in the Battle of the Wood of Ephraim , and David mourns him 2 Samuel Sheba son of Bichri revolts, but is ultimately beheaded 2 Samuel In 2 Samuel 21, David has seven of Sauls sons and grandsons killed, including "the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul", though he spares Sauls grandson Mephibosheth.
More wars take place. Characters like Phinehas Num. As a response to the violence of the wicked, numerous psalms call on God to bring vengeance on one's personal enemies, for example Ps. In the Gospel of Matthew , Herod the Great is described as ordering the execution of all young male children in the vicinity of Bethlehem. There are sayings of Jesus where he states that he comes to bring fire or a sword. The earliest detailed accounts of the killing of Jesus are contained in the four canonical gospels , with other implicit references in the New Testament epistles.
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus predicts his death in three separate episodes. The metaphor of sacrifice is used in reference to His death, both in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament. Scholars note that the reader receives an almost hour-by-hour account of what is happening. The Book of Revelation is full of imagery of war, genocide, and destruction. It describes the Apocalypse , the last judgment of all the nations and people by God, which includes plagues, war, and economic collapse.
Some other books of the Gospels also use apocalyptic language and forms. Scholars define this as language that "views the future as a time when divine saving and judging activity will deliver God's people out of the present evil order into a new order This transformation will be cataclysmic and cosmic. Whenever Jesus calls people to a new vision in light of God's impending kingdom, judgment, or a future resurrection, he is using apocalyptic speech.
Charles B. Strozier, psychoanalyst historian says: "The most troubling dimension of 'endism' is its relation to violence. Collins wrote a short book called "Does the Bible Justify Violence? The Bible has contributed to violence in the world precisely because it has been taken to confer a degree of certitude that transcends human discussion and argumentation. Such a selective reading, privileging the death of Jesus or the suffering servant, is certainly possible and even commendable, but it does not negate the force of the biblical endorsements of violence that we have been considering. The full canonical shape of the Christian Bible, for what it is worth, still concludes with the judgement scene in Revelation, in which the Lamb that was slain returns as the heavenly warrior with a sword for striking down the nations.
Regina Schwartz is among those who seek to reimagine Christianity and the Christian biblical canon in ways that reduce violence which she describes as arising from the ancient Israelite invention of monotheism and some of the ways that the ancient Israelites conceived of themselves in relation to that one god and to other peoples, which Christians inherited.
She wrote: "The Other against whom Israel's identity is forged is abhorred, abject, impure, and in the "Old Testament," vast numbers of them are obliterated, while in the "New Testament," vast numbers are colonized converted. The tying of identity to rejection runs counter to much of the drive that could be found elsewhere, both in the Bible and throughout religious myth and ritual, to forge identity through analogy, even identification Among all the rich variety, I would categorize two broad understandings of identity in the Bible: one grounded in Negation or scarcity and the other in Multiplicity or plenitude.
It would be a Bible embracing multiplicity instead of monotheism. Stephen Geller notes that both the Deuteronomist and the Priestly authors working in the Axial Age were re-evaluating and reformulating their traditions, like their neighbors were, using the literary means available to them. The Deuteronomists expressed their new notions of the transcendence and power of God by means of ideas and associated laws around unity—the one-ness of God, worshipped at the one temple in Jerusalem, by one people, kept distinct from the rest of world just as God is; zealously and violently so.
In Geller's reading the blood is not magical nor is the animal just a substitute for a human sacrifice; instead blood is at once an expression of the violence of the fallen world where people kill in order to eat unlike Eden and the blood itself becomes a means for redemption; it is forbidden to be eaten, as a sign of restraint and recognition, and is instead offered to God, and in that action the relationship between fallen humanity and God is restored.
The Priestly authors underline the importance of all this by recalling the mortal danger faced by the High Priests, through the telling of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu when God refused their "strange offering" and consumed them with fire. Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning.
Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us out to where we can never return. Evan Fales, Professor of Philosophy, calls the doctrine of substitutionary atonement that some Christians use to understand the crucifixion of Jesus, "psychologically pernicious" and "morally indefensible".
Philosopher and Professor Alvin Plantinga says this rests upon seeing God as a kind of specially talented human being. Historian Philip Jenkins quoting Phyllis Trible says the Bible is filled with "texts of terror" but he also asserts these texts are not to be taken literally. Jenkins says eighth century BCE historians added them to embellish their ancestral history and get readers' attention. Old Testament scholar Ellen Davis is concerned by what she calls a "shallow reading" of Scripture, particularly of 'Old Testament' texts concerning violence, which she defines as a "reading of what we think we already know instead of an attempt to dig deeper for new insights and revelations.
Discussions of bible and violence often lead to discussions of the theodicy - the question of how evil can persist in the world if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and good. Philosopher Eleonore Stump says the larger context of God permitting suffering for good purposes in a world where evil is real allows for such events as the killing of those intending evil and God to still be seen as good. Jon Levenson resolves the problem of evil by describing God's power not as static, but as unfolding in time: "the operative dichotomy, thus, is not that between limitation and omnipotence, but that which lies between omnipotence as a static attribute and omnipotence as a dramatic enactment: the absolute power of God realizing itself achievement and relationship.
What the biblical theology of dramatic omnipotence shares with the theology of a limited God is a frank recognition of God's setbacks, in contrast to the classic theodicies with their exaggerated commitment to divine impassibility and their tendency to describe imperfection solely to human free will, the recalcitrance of matter, or the like. In Hermann Gunkel observed that most Ancient Near Eastern ANE creation stories contain a theogony depicting a god doing combat with other gods thus including violence in the founding of their cultures.
Hence, it seems that the account of God creating without violence in Gen. Canaanite creation stories like the Enuma Elish use very physical terms such as "tore open," "slit," "threw down," "smashed," and "severed" whereas in the Hebrew Bible, Leviathan is not so much defeated as domesticated. Most modern scholars agree that "Gen. What is more, in Gen. God "calls the world into being" These stories in Genesis are not the only stories about creation in the Bible. In Proverbs 8, for example one reads of personified Wisdom being present and participant in creation.
However, he also says the differences are more pronounced than the similarities. The intent of Genesis n concerning "creation from nothing" is disputed. Jon Levenson , writing Jewish biblical theology , asserts the creation stories in Genesis are not ex nihilo , but rather a generation of order out of chaos, similar to other ANE creation myths; the order allows life to flourish and holds back chaos which brings violence and destruction, which has never been obliterated and is always breaking back in.
He finds that the writers of the Hebrew Bible referred to God's actions at creation as a statement of faith in a God who could protect and maintain them, or who could also step back and allow chaos to rush back in, as God did with the Flood. He finds that the writers of the Hebrew Bible also held up God's actions at creation as a challenge for God to act, and a challenge for themselves to work in covenant with God in the ongoing work of generating and maintaining order. This sense of honoring or empowering humankind is not in any of the Mesopotamian or Canaanite myths.
Warfare represents a special category of biblical violence and is a topic the Bible addresses, directly and indirectly, in four ways: there are verses that support pacifism , and verses that support non-resistance ; 4th century theologian Augustine found the basis of just war in the Bible, and preventive war which is sometimes called crusade has also been supported using Bible texts.
To understand attitudes toward war in the Hebrew Bible is thus to gain a handle on war in general In the Bible God commands the Israelites to conquer the Promised Land , placing city after city "under the ban" -which meant every man, woman and child was supposed to be slaughtered at the point of the sword. Hans Van Wees says the conquest campaigns are largely fictional. Crouch compares the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah to Assyria, saying their similarities in cosmology and ideology gave them similar ethical outlooks on war. Violence against women appears throughout the Old Testament.
Many have attributed this to a patriarchal society, while some scholars say the problem stems from the larger context of a male dominated culture. Women are treated in differing ways in the Bible. Scholar author Phyllis Trible looks at these instances from the perspective of the victim making their pathos palpable, underlying their human reality, and the tragedy of their stories.
O'Connor says women in the Old Testament generally serve as points of reference for the larger story, yet Judges abounds with stories where women play the main role. O'Connor explains the significance of this, saying: "The period between the death of Joshua and the anointing of Saul Beginning with the larger context and tracing the decline of Israel by following the deteriorating status of women and the violence done to them, which progresses from the promise of life in the land to chaos and violence, the effects of the absence of authority such as a king Judges is reflected in the violence against women that occurs when government fails and social upheaval occurs.
The concept of hell as a place of punishment in the afterlife arose in Second Temple Judaism and was further developed in the Christian tradition; Judaism subsequently moved away from this notion. For example, Isaiah which is part of proto-Isaiah chapters 1—39 , speaks of "the dead who live no more" as being "punished and destroyed". And Daniel —3, which is generally believed to date to the second century BCE, asserts "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
The word Sheol appears 65 times in the Hebrew Bible and the term "Tartaros" appears frequently in Jewish apocalyptic literature where it refers to a place where the wicked are punished. All the references to gehenna except James are spoken by Jesus himself. A literal interpretation involves violence. According to a statement by the publisher of "Four Views on Hell", Zondervan , "probably the most disturbing concept in Christian tradition is the prospect that one day vast numbers of people will be consigned to Hell. Lewis argued that people choose Hell rather than repent and submit to God.
Miroslav Wolf argues that the doctrine of final judgment provides a necessary restraint on human violence. Tim Keller says it is right to be angry when someone brings injustice or violence to those we love and therefore a loving God can be filled with wrath because of love, not in spite of it. Oliver O'Donovan argues that without the judgment of God we would never see the love in redemption.
As the early Christian Church began to distinguish itself from Judaism , the "Old Testament" and a portrayal of God in it as violent and unforgiving were sometimes contrasted rhetorically with certain teachings of Jesus to portray an image of God as more loving and forgiving, which was framed as a new image. Marcion of Sinope , in the early second century, developed an early Christian dualist belief system that understood the god of the Old Testament and creator of the material universe, who he called the Demiurge , as an altogether different being than the God about whom Jesus spoke.
Marcion considered Jesus' universal God of compassion and love, who looks upon humanity with benevolence and mercy, incompatible with Old Testament depictions of divinely ordained violence. Accordingly, he did not regard the Hebrew scriptures as part of his scriptural canon. Supersessionist Christians have continued to focus on violence in the Hebrew Bible while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament. From this foundation arose notions of flourishing of the nation as a whole, as well as collective punishment of the ancient Israelites and their enemies.
Scholar Nur Masalha writes that the "genocide" of the extermination commandments has been "kept before subsequent generations" and served as inspirational examples of divine support for slaughtering enemies. Arthur Grenke quotes historian, author and scholar David Stannard : "Discussing the influence of Christian beliefs on the destruction of the Native peoples in the Americas, Stannard argues that while the New Testament view of war is ambiguous, there is little such ambiguity in the Old Testament. He points to sections in Deuteronomy in which the Israelite God, Yahweh, commanded that the Israelites utterly destroy idolaters whose land they sought to reserve for the worship of their deity Deut , 16, and — According to Stannard, this view of war contributed to the It was this view that also led to the destruction of European Jewry.
Accordingly, it is important to look at this particular segment of the Old Testament: it not only describes a situation where a group undertakes to totally destroy other groups, but it also had a major influence on shaping thought and belief systems that permitted, and even inspired, genocide.
Sociologists Frank Robert Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn question "the applicability of the term [genocide] to earlier periods of history, and the judgmental and moral loadings that have become associated with it. They also say: "The evidence for genocide in antiquity is circumstantial, inferential, and ambiguous, and it comes to us exclusively from the perpetrators. Historian and author William T. Cavanaugh says every society throughout history has contained both hawks and doves. Cavanaugh and John Gammie say laws like those in Deuteronomy probably reflect Israel's internal struggle over such differing views of how to wage war.
Arie Versluis says, " This is shown by the example of Te Kooti Scholar Leonard B. Glick states that Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, such as Shlomo Aviner , consider the Palestinians to be like biblical Canaanites, and that some fundamentalist leaders suggest that they "must be prepared to destroy" the Palestinians if the Palestinians do not leave the land. Philosopher, sociologist, theologian and author Jacques Ellul says: "I believe that the biblical teaching is clear.
It always contests political power. It incites to "counterpower," to "positive" criticism, to an irreducible dialogue like that between king and prophet in Israel , to antistatism, to a decentralizing of the relation, to an extreme relativizing of everything political, to an anti-ideology, to a questioning of all that claims either power or dominion in other words, of all things political Throughout the Old Testament we see God choosing what is weak and humble to represent him the stammering Moses, the infant Samuel, Saul from an insignificant family, David confronting Goliath, etc.
Paul tells us that God chooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Bible and violence. Canons and books. Tanakh Torah Nevi'im Ketuvim. Christian biblical canons. Deuterocanon Antilegomena. Authorship and development. Authorship Dating Hebrew canon.
Pauline epistles Petrine epistles. Translations and manuscripts. Biblical studies. Hermeneutics Pesher Midrash Pardes. Allegorical interpretation Literalism. Gnostic Islamic Qur'anic. Inerrancy Infallibility. Main article: Apocalypticism. Main article: Problem of Hell. Humanity, When Force is Justified and Why.
Related Do Pets Go To Heaven? Now theres biblical proof you can believe in (revised and expanded)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved