SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,126
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 100:
Line 100: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 114:
Line 145: − + − + + − + − Line 233:
Line 264: − ===Toledoth Accounts=== − There's a good explanation here of the "Wiseman Hypothesis" or "Tablet theory", which basically says that the book of Genesis is made up of numerous Mesopotamian family tablets, similar to those found by archaeologists throughout Mesopotamia, and that they were combined by Moses into a single account. Each tablet would have a genealogical table and a narrative about the family's history: − − http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/10/11/the-tablet-theory-of-genesis-authorship.aspx#Article − − Basically, the book of Genesis is divided into separate accounts all throughout using the Hebrew word "towl@dah" or toledoth, which roughly translates to "generation": − − http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/KJV/towledah.html − − The word is used in the following places to indicate different generations: − − * Genesis 2:4 - Generations of the heavens and the earth − * Genesis 5:1 - Generations of Adam − * Genesis 6:9 - Generations of Noah − * Genesis 10:1 - Generations of sons of Noah; Shem, Ham, and Japheth − * Genesis 10:39 - Generations of families of sons of Noah − * Genesis 11:10 - Generations of Shem − * Genesis 11:27 - Generations of Terah − * Generations 25:12 - Generations of Ishmael − * Generations 25:13 - Generations of sons of Ishmael − * Genesis 25:19 - Generations of Isaac − * Genesis 36:1 (repeated Genesis 36:9) - Generations of Esau − * Genesis 37:2 - Generations of Jacob − − Genesis 1:1-2:3 was something different. There were no heavens or earth for descendants to come from, so this section might properly be said to be a history of God's creation, a genealogy if you will. Genesis 2:4-4:26 on the other hand would be a generation of the heavens and earth specifically, and how once created their history and descendants continued, a narrative of specific events. − It's a pattern for the whole book of Genesis to give two sides, a genealogy, and a narrative of major events relating to people in the genealogy. For example, Genesis 5 tells of Noah's genealogy, but then goes into detail about his life in chapter 6-9. Genesis 10 tells of Noah's son's genealogies, Genesis 11:1-9 tells detail about events. Genesis 11:10-32 tells of Abraham's genealogy, while chapters 12-25:11 give detail about events. Genesis 25:12-18 gives detail about Isaac's genealogy, while 25:19-35:29 gives detail about events. − − So in other words, it appears to me the first account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 was a genealogy if you will, a factual account about the creation by God, mentioning descendants. Genesis 2:4 was a specific narrative about the events of early mankind. This is a pattern seen all throughout the book of Genesis, and is consistent with the style used in early Mesopotamian genealogical tablets as recovered by archaeology. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 18:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless. (view source)
Revision as of 22:09, July 20, 2012
, 22:09, July 20, 2012no edit summary
::There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read the rest of it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:44, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read the rest of it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:44, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
===Toledoth Accounts===
There's a good explanation here of the "Wiseman Hypothesis" or "Tablet theory", which basically says that the book of Genesis is made up of numerous Mesopotamian family tablets, similar to those found by archaeologists throughout Mesopotamia, and that they were combined by Moses into a single account. Each tablet would have a genealogical table and a narrative about the family's history:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/10/11/the-tablet-theory-of-genesis-authorship.aspx#Article
Basically, the book of Genesis is divided into separate accounts all throughout using the Hebrew word "towl@dah" or toledoth, which roughly translates to "generation":
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/KJV/towledah.html
The word is used in the following places to indicate different generations:
* Genesis 2:4 - Generations of the heavens and the earth
* Genesis 5:1 - Generations of Adam
* Genesis 6:9 - Generations of Noah
* Genesis 10:1 - Generations of sons of Noah; Shem, Ham, and Japheth
* Genesis 10:39 - Generations of families of sons of Noah
* Genesis 11:10 - Generations of Shem
* Genesis 11:27 - Generations of Terah
* Generations 25:12 - Generations of Ishmael
* Generations 25:13 - Generations of sons of Ishmael
* Genesis 25:19 - Generations of Isaac
* Genesis 36:1 (repeated Genesis 36:9) - Generations of Esau
* Genesis 37:2 - Generations of Jacob
Genesis 1:1-2:3 was something different. There were no heavens or earth for descendants to come from, so this section might properly be said to be a history of God's creation, a genealogy if you will. Genesis 2:4-4:26 on the other hand would be a generation of the heavens and earth specifically, and how once created their history and descendants continued, a narrative of specific events.
It's a pattern for the whole book of Genesis to give two sides, a genealogy, and a narrative of major events relating to people in the genealogy. For example, Genesis 5 tells of Noah's genealogy, but then goes into detail about his life in chapter 6-9. Genesis 10 tells of Noah's son's genealogies, Genesis 11:1-9 tells detail about events. Genesis 11:10-32 tells of Abraham's genealogy, while chapters 12-25:11 give detail about events. Genesis 25:12-18 gives detail about Isaac's genealogy, while 25:19-35:29 gives detail about events.
So in other words, it appears to me the first account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 was a genealogy if you will, a factual account about the creation by God, mentioning descendants. Genesis 2:4 was a specific narrative about the events of early mankind. This is a pattern seen all throughout the book of Genesis, and is consistent with the style used in early Mesopotamian genealogical tablets as recovered by archaeology. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 18:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
== Leaven ==
Being a Christian is bad for a person's mental health because according to the Bible, the Bible contains "leaven".
Being a Christian is bad for a person's mental health because according to the Bible, the Bible contains "leaven".
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
According to the Bible, it contains "leaven", "leaven" is to be avoided, and "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible. The unsorted Bible is therefore bad for a person's mental health.
According to the Bible, it contains "leaven", "leaven" is to be avoided, and "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible. The unsorted Bible is therefore bad for a person's mental health.
heretic5 [Being a heretic is not automatically being wrong.]
-heretic5 [Being a heretic is not automatically being wrong.]
:You are making a simple reading comprehension mistake. Jesus never said "leaven" was wrong. He said the "leaven of the Pharisees" was wrong. You're misinterpreting the passage, mis-reading it. It's silly reading mistakes like this that drive me crazy. If a lot of "skeptics" had reading comprehension and took basic English courses they wouldn't think the Bible had all these errors, because by and large many "inconsistencies" alleged are just reading comprehension problems on the part of skeptics. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 18:09, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
== Not Inconsistencies ==
The "inconsistencies" found in the bible are NOT inconsistincies at all. They are merely different points of view, its that simple. If three people went on vacation together to Disney world, then came back home and they decided to write their accounts of what happened in their journals, I can promise that they would have a few similarities; However, they would ALSO show a few different stories. They may include certain by-standers that were important to them, but maybe not important to another person who tells the same story so then left out that person. The story is still the same, with NO lies, or inconsistencies, just simply different points of view.
The "inconsistencies" found in the bible are NOT inconsistincies at all. They are merely different points of view, its that simple. If three people went on vacation together to Disney world, then came back home and they decided to write their accounts of what happened in their journals, I can promise that they would have a few similarities; However, they would ALSO show a few different stories. They may include certain by-standers that were important to them, but maybe not important to another person who tells the same story so then left out that person. The story is still the same, with NO lies, or inconsistencies, just simply different points of view.
-matt
-matt
::...but not all of those points of view can be correct, if they differ in detail. If Susie says that everybody bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, and Jack says that only half of the family bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, then someone is remembering inaccurately.
...but not all of those points of view can be correct, if they differ in detail. If Susie says that everybody bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, and Jack says that only half of the family bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, then someone is remembering inaccurately.
It's interesting that the majority of scholars I've researched who defend the Bible against accusations of inconsistency do so by frequently making the point that the English translation doesn't always carry the same context as the original Aramaic. In other words: ''something was lost in translation.''
It's interesting that the majority of scholars I've researched who defend the Bible against accusations of inconsistency do so by frequently making the point that the English translation doesn't always carry the same context as the original Aramaic. In other words: ''something was lost in translation.''
Hold on, now. Don’t assume anything. You don’t know what I believe on the subject because I haven’t stated anything yet. I simply asked about what you believe. I actually do hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is the Biblical truth. I was simply trying to follow up on what you said about different Christ and God being different entities. If they are, then Christ couldn’t be the one God. Because by definition two entities are two entirely separate beings, so God and Christ wouldn’t be the same. That’s why the Trinity is referred to as one God, three persons, not three separate beings. But it sounds like you hold to the doctrine as well, so we agree on that. Perhaps it’s just a communication error. I wanted to make sure you weren’t rejecting the divinity of Christ. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:30, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Hold on, now. Don’t assume anything. You don’t know what I believe on the subject because I haven’t stated anything yet. I simply asked about what you believe. I actually do hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is the Biblical truth. I was simply trying to follow up on what you said about different Christ and God being different entities. If they are, then Christ couldn’t be the one God. Because by definition two entities are two entirely separate beings, so God and Christ wouldn’t be the same. That’s why the Trinity is referred to as one God, three persons, not three separate beings. But it sounds like you hold to the doctrine as well, so we agree on that. Perhaps it’s just a communication error. I wanted to make sure you weren’t rejecting the divinity of Christ. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:30, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
==References==
==References==