Bible in a Year! v. February

[bosk1]

Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.

One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.  They are the only four humans on Earth.  Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod.  Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife.  Where did she come from? 

Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).

*threat neutralized*

Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth.  It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.

But at the same time it isn't a far cry by any stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Adam had other children before Seth.  The Bible doesn't mention every single child of every single character (nor does it have to).  I imagine Abel's murder occured at least 16 years or so after they were born.  Back then the women pumped out babies left and right and I don't think A&E would have waited so long to have Seth.

But it seems like you've made up your mind.

Nah, I'm just nitpicking.  It was something that jumped out at me the first time I read it, and it still does.  Besides, it's much easier to point out and discuss these little things than the big issues.

Look at chapter 5.  You haver people living several hundred (close to 1,000) years and having children VERY late in the process.  In 5 chapters, you have several thousand years of storyline, so of course a ton of detail is left out and you can easily jump ahead several hundred (or thousand) years in the span of a few verses.  It is easy to picture Cain and Abel being fairly young in that account, but I don't think that is the case given the details you pointed out.  So as far as other people being around, there could easily have been lots.  I mean, if people were supposedly having children at almost 200 years old, think about how many children they could potentially have.  Even at the rate of 1 every 5 years, if we assume Adam and Even were created as adults (which they seem to be), that's 40 kids (if no twins, etc.).  And during that time, some of them would have had kids, etc.

[hefdaddy42]

That is still going off of supposition and not what the text actually says.  GP is right in that the text doesn't mention Adam and Eve having other kids until after Seth.  I think to just gloss over that with details of what, according to the story, happened hundreds or thousands of years later is not to take seriously what the text actually says about the beginning of days.

[bosk1]

Of course it's going off supposition, but it's a supposition that is 100% consistent with the text (vs. a huge leap along the lines of the gap theory).  A supposition that A&E began having children right away is pure speculation, of course, but even if what the text means (even though it does not say so) is that they only had other children after Seth, it is still 100% consistent with the text that by the time Cain married, there were LOTS of other offspring of A&E running around and that he married one of them. 

[El JoNNo]

I agree that it is a gap but not a gap that is earth shattering or anything. It would have been smart of the writers to include some sort of reassurance that there were more offspring besides Cain and Abel. Not mentioning something isn't necessarily proof of absence. Cain and Abel were probably mentioned for more shock and awe, merely because it was probably considered the first murder and punishment for murder. Otherwise you would probably have one of the those annoying he begot this and that right up until Noah, which is another significant event in the bible.

What concerns me is the willful path to incest the bible takes.   

[hefdaddy42]

Of course it's going off supposition, but it's a supposition that is 100% consistent with the text (vs. a huge leap along the lines of the gap theory).  A supposition that A&E began having children right away is pure speculation, of course, but even if what the text means (even though it does not say so) is that they only had other children after Seth, it is still 100% consistent with the text that by the time Cain married, there were LOTS of other offspring of A&E running around and that he married one of them. 

I basically agree with you.

Hey, we should be friends or something.

[Quadrochosis]

Look at chapter 5.  You haver people living several hundred (close to 1,000) years and having children VERY late in the process.  In 5 chapters, you have several thousand years of storyline, so of course a ton of detail is left out and you can easily jump ahead several hundred (or thousand) years in the span of a few verses.  It is easy to picture Cain and Abel being fairly young in that account, but I don't think that is the case given the details you pointed out.  So as far as other people being around, there could easily have been lots.  I mean, if people were supposedly having children at almost 200 years old, think about how many children they could potentially have.  Even at the rate of 1 every 5 years, if we assume Adam and Even were created as adults (which they seem to be), that's 40 kids (if no twins, etc.).  And during that time, some of them would have had kids, etc.

That idea is extremely unsettling. The idea of a family running on for that long is just really strange to me.

[hefdaddy42]

In today's reading, 12-15, we get the debut of Abram/Abraham as a major player.  Now we're getting somewhere lol.

[Perpetual Change]

Sorry I've been late guys. I'll be able to start Thursday.

[bosk1]

In today's reading, 12-15, we get the debut of Abram/Abraham as a major player.  Now we're getting somewhere lol.

So...somebody needs to do a photoshop of Abraham going, "I'm a maja' playa', yo!"

Going back to day one (sorry), something I find incredibly interesting in the six-day creation account is the entire cosmology of it all.  Obviously, there is a lot we could be misisng simply because of the piont of view of the text--i.e., it isn't trying to explain the creation of the universe from a complex scientific view, but is merely presenting the story in terms that a reader can understand.  For this reason, I have often struggled with just how literally the reader is meant to take the creation account.  On one hand, it is written in a very literalistic style.  But then again, in today's society, we say things like, "the sun rose" knowing full well that the sun doesn't literally "rise" at all, and yet we're perfectly comfortable using language that if an alien who knew nothing about us landed on earth one day and heard us use, he'd think we were serious and either laugh at us or be horrified that we could be so ignorant.  I sometimes wonder how much of the creation account is like that. 

For instance, we have the earth initially being lit by some source other than the sun and the sun not yet existing.  Or do we?  If the account is literal, that to me suggests one of at least two options that are pretty unconventional views of the cosmos:  (1) The earth existed independently in the beginning, and God just held it all together until he was ready to put the sun (and everything else in place).  Then when the sun and stars were created, they were created with their light instantaneously reaching the earth.  OR (2) We are not properly understanding what was meant by the word that is translated "created" or "made."  Perhaps the rest of the universe DID preexist (i.e. they were literally "created" much earlier), and the timing was simply such that their light did not reach or was not permitted to shine on the earth until the moment God deemed them to be [insert term for whatever the text means when it said "created"], at which time their light was permitted to shine on the earth.  OR...something else.

[GuineaPig]

How literally the reader was meant to take Genesis is an interesting question.  For obvious reasons it cannot be taken literally, but I'm interested in what Hefdaddy or others might know on scholarship concerning the use of metaphors/imagery in the OT.  I remember thinking from my original reading that the OT was a lot more evocative (in some places, not in others...) in its style.  I've heard some arguments that elements like the creation account were not intended to be taken literally, but I have no idea what modern scholars think.

[bosk1]

Opinions vary greatly.

[gmillerdrake]

I have an issue/thought about how literal to take 'God created man in his image'. They way I understand that is being created in God's image does not literally mean 10 finger and toes and so forth, but more of recieving conciousness and emotion in it's rawest form. Everything form joy and sadness to love and hate and all in between placed in our spirit available to experience and learn from.....which would allow us to, if we chose to, cultivate that spirit or conciousness in order to commune with God and prepare ourselves for our lives after the physical expires. 
  To me, Being made in his image means I have been given the spiritual (conciousness, emotional) building blocks and awareness to prepare for an eternal existance while here in this physical body. To try and imagine who and what God is and his capabilies and power...is impossible for our minds to comprehend and although I won't bother with citing it here, there is countless scripture teaching us and instructing us to that point. While here on this Earth we will never have the ability to fully understand God's intentions...I'm cool with that.
   I guess my point is I don't picture a Zeus like figure with a long grey beard and flowing silver hair as God's image because God is not contained in a body. He did take human form and come to us as Jesus, but in his every day operational 'form', he is just simply any and everything at any moment.
   So my issue/question is, does anyone else percieve 'being created in God's image' not as a physical statement but a spiritual/conciousness/emotional statement? Hopefully I described that well enough to be understood.

[yeshaberto]

you described it perfectly, and I agree 100%.  He is a spiritual being, so there is no physical form to be like.  however, we share all of the same passions and emotions because we are created like Him.  the only difference is our emotions are scarred by the fall.

[bosk1]

you described it perfectly, and I agree 100%.  He is a spiritual being, so there is no physical form to be like.  however, we share all of the same passions and emotions because we are created like Him. 

[gmillerdrake]

Another question I have which I am sure some of you have thought about and even addressed, is that God 'knows' everything...he created existance itself and tells us he knew us before we were in the womb. So one would assume that when he created A&E and instructed them NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge that he was aware they would. Does the fact that he knew they would anyway negate free will in any way or justify it?
  What was his motivation if the outcome was already determined? Was he simply putting the pieces in place to ultimately culminate in him coming to Earth in the form of Christ? Was he ensuring that in order to test and refine the 'raw' conciousness and emotion he created and bestowed within us that sin HAD to be introduced to fulfill our purpose?

[bosk1]

Those are all great questions and discussion points, but they should probably be in a different thread. 

[yeshaberto]

yeah, that particular question has been hashed out multiple times in different threads

[Ħ]

If you do take the Bible creation account literally, which will lead you to the conclusion that the earth is between 6000-10000 years old, there is a way to reconcile it with science.

In the creation account, God created things in an aged form.  Here's an example.  On Day 2 he planted the seeds for the trees.  By the end of the day, we are told that the seeds not only matured into full grown trees, but that they also bore fruit.  A seed became a fruit-bearing tree over a 24-hour period.

Suppose a botanist came along on Day 3 and decided to test these trees to see how old they were.  He would certainly not conclude that the tree is only a single day old--it normally takes years to reach the fruit-bearing phase!

In order to reconcile science and the creation story, I believe that just because something has the appearance of age doesn't mean it is actually that old.  As accurate a scientist's tools and methods might be, they cannot account for the "accelerated" growth that creation underwent.

But then again, in today's society, we say things like, "the sun rose" knowing full well that the sun doesn't literally "rise" at all

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are talking about the battle in Joshua where the sun "stood still"?  That gave me problems for a while since we now think of the sun as a stationary object that the planets revolve around.

But then I got to thinking that all motion is relative.  For example we think of ourselves as being motionless when we are sleeping.  But in comparison to the solar system, we are actually moving quite rapidly with the rotation of the earth.  So it's all a matter of perspective.  In that way I don't think it is an incorrect statement to say "the sun rose."

Aaand Reading for January 4 is Genesis 12-15.

[bosk1]

No, I wasn't referring to Joshua.  I'm just saying that we use a colloquial wording to describe something in a way that is completely contradictory to how we know it really works.  (The sun doesn't truly "rise" or "set" at all.  It stays right where it is [relative to the earth, at least], and the rotation of the earth merely gives the illusion that the sun rises and sets)  But, yet, it's not a contradiction at all.  It's just an accepted way of describing the phenomenon of a "sunrise."  (see, I just did it again)

[GuineaPig]

If you do take the Bible creation account literally, which will lead you to the conclusion that the earth is between 6000-10000 years old, there is a way to reconcile it with science.

In the creation account, God created things in an aged form.  Here's an example.  On Day 2 he planted the seeds for the trees.  By the end of the day, we are told that the seeds not only matured into full grown trees, but that they also bore fruit.  A seed became a fruit-bearing tree over a 24-hour period.

Suppose a botanist came along on Day 3 and decided to test these trees to see how old they were.  He would certainly not conclude that the tree is only a single day old--it normally takes years to reach the fruit-bearing phase!

In order to reconcile science and the creation story, I believe that just because something has the appearance of age doesn't mean it is actually that old.  As accurate a scientist's tools and methods might be, they cannot account for the "accelerated" growth that creation underwent.

This doesn't even come close to "reconciling" anything.  We don't age the Earth from trees or plants or animals, or things that "grow".  We age the Earth from dating rocks and minerals; both from our planet and extraterrestrial objects.  How would a gneiss from the Canadian Shield that we measure to be 4 billion years old actually be 6,000 years old?  Appearance has nothing to do with it.  We don't look at rocks and guess the age.  You either don't understand the scientific method, or you don't understand the methods used to collect and date rock samples.

And then of course there's the obvious fact that the Flood never happened, continental drift, evolution, archaeology, and all other manners of scientific and historical evidence.  It's impossible to support the notion that the Earth is as young as the Bible would suggest.  Simply impossible.

[bosk1]

He's saying that our commonly accepted methods of dating things are flawed and draw incorrect conclusions because the earth was formed "fully mature," in every sense (animals, trees, rocks and minerals, etc.).  But, again, I know I opened that can of worms with my post, but I'm merely making an observation about the text.  If you want to go into detailed argument about whether or not creation science is valid, IMO, that is a discussion for another thread.

[Ħ]

What do you think of that concept bosk?

[bosk1]

What do you think of that concept bosk?

I think it makes sense.  I'm not 100% sure it is correct, but I think it makes sense in the context of what is written.  (except that I think you are incorrect in your interpretation about the seeds; it doesn't say God planted seeds, which then grew into mature plants in a day; it reads as though God created the plants the same way as everything else--in other words:  bam!  there they are)

[Ħ]

Yeah you're right, it doesn't say it like that.  Hmm...I guess I've always instinctively thought there was a "growing process" with creation taking six days and all....if it was just a BAM! then why not just do it the first day in a moment of time?  But anyway I guess it isn't too critical which way you go.  TBH I'm not too sure what I think about it.

[GuineaPig]

But when you say "mature", what does that mean?  How can a gneiss be dated to be 4 billion years, but a limestone only a couple million if they were created at the same time?  If the Earth appears to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, why is the Big Bang dated at ~13 billion years ago?  What about all the fossils that show a far richer biodiversity than exists presently, but is not dated concurrently with existing species?

To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception.  That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.  It's not falsifiable, it's not testable, it doesn't even make sense.  To claim that God created a species of rocks at the same time, but with different 238U/206Pb and 235U/207Pb ratios just to give them the appearance of difference in age is really grasping at straws.

[gmillerdrake]

To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception.  That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.  

I think that what we measure and observe can only be trusted to the extent that we realize every variable we use to calculate/measure/test etc. has been created by MAN to TRY and comprehend this planet/universe.....our existance. Just because the mathmatics and physics and all other forms of scientific understanding appears to make sense and 'fit', does not mean that it is the 'proper' way to view the universe or natural world. It is comfortable and accepted because of how it 'makes sense' to us...but in the end these concepts are birthed, cultivated then used by man, and (IMO) inherantly flawed because of that fact.   

[hefdaddy42]

To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception.  That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.  

I think that what we measure and observe can only be trusted to the extent that we realize every variable we use to calculate/measure/test etc. has been created by MAN to TRY and comprehend this planet/universe.....our existance. Just because the mathmatics and physics and all other forms of scientific understanding appears to make sense and 'fit', does not mean that it is the 'proper' way to view the universe or natural world. It is comfortable and accepted because of how it 'makes sense' to us...but in the end these concepts are birthed, cultivated then used by man, and (IMO) inherantly flawed because of that fact.   

That doesn't even make any sense.

[bosk1]

It does to me.  But come now.  Let us not dwell on such idle things.  Let us instead mediate, you and I, on Abraham, the playa'. 

[hefdaddy42]

Word.

Or should I say, THE Word?

[Ħ]

If you like Abraham so much, just wait til you hear about his bosom.

It is in these chapters that I feel the argument for a prophesied literal eathly physical kingdom in the NT is strong.  I mean, Abe physically walks the land, and God says he will give it to him and his offspring for ever.  Take it for what it is, connect it with the promises of a kingdom to David in 2 Samuel, and with the 490-year time schedule in Daniel, and out the other end comes the conclusion that Christ preached and believed a literal kingdom at hand.

[hefdaddy42]

If you like Abraham so much, just wait til you hear about his bosom.

It is in these chapters that I feel the argument for a prophesied literal eathly physical kingdom in the NT is strong.  I mean, Abe physically walks the land, and God says he will give it to him and his offspring for ever.  Take it for what it is, connect it with the promises of a kingdom to David in 2 Samuel, and with the 490-year time schedule in Daniel, and out the other end comes the conclusion that Christ preached and believed a literal kingdom at hand.

I don't think the one is connected in any way to the other.

[Ħ]

But do you agree that God does  promise physical land to Abraham that he later (and later Israel) will inhabit for eternity?

[hefdaddy42]

But do you agree that God does  promise physical land to Abraham that he later (and later Israel) will inhabit for eternity?

No.  I just read the covenant in Genesis 15, and I didn't see the words "forever" or "for eternity."  I guess I could have missed that.

Of course, that section is from J.  The P version of the covenant, in today's reading (chapter 17), does mention permanency.

But the land certainly hasn't belonged to Abrahamic descendants for all of the last 3500 years.

[gmillerdrake]

To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception.  That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.  

I think that what we measure and observe can only be trusted to the extent that we realize every variable we use to calculate/measure/test etc. has been created by MAN to TRY and comprehend this planet/universe.....our existance. Just because the mathmatics and physics and all other forms of scientific understanding appears to make sense and 'fit', does not mean that it is the 'proper' way to view the universe or natural world. It is comfortable and accepted because of how it 'makes sense' to us...but in the end these concepts are birthed, cultivated then used by man, and (IMO) inherantly flawed because of that fact.   

That doesn't even make any sense.

Exactly

[Ħ]

Reading for January 5 is Genesis 16-18.