Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

Well, you're ignoring that Genesis 1 explicitly states that "adam" created at that time was created in God's image.

1 don't antagonize me. no one is this stupid.
2 No it absolutely does not unless you are speaking in a hebrew english hybrid. meaning you take the english translation for 15/16th of the passage and only use the hebrew word because it looks and sounds like the english word Adam and seek to push a bad translation. That is why you intentionally mislead me by posting the hebrew over english translation. it was the only document you could find to allow you to freely select a word. You and everyone else has to know how dishonest this practice is! Do you realy see me as being that dumb?

How on earth does that even remotely address the question?

 But I'm curious to know upon what basis do you rest this theory about the one referring to mankind in Genesis 1, and that it was a proper name in the second?

 Glob... Seriously? you are beating me over the head with a lexicon, and you don't understand that the "Adam of man kind/Humanity and the Adam a man's name is two different words?!?!? or rather has two different word meanings in the strongs? look up strong word number H120 and Strong's word number H121 do you see that 120 is a common masculine noun and 121 is a proper masculine noun EG a person's name?
That is why you can not find a translation to support your reading.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex...H121&t=KJV
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...H120&t=KJV

Nobody was beating you over the head, I was simply asking why you considered the instance of adam in Genesis 2 to be a name. You quoted Strong's H120 which noted that it could mean either man or Adam. That didn't in any sense answer the question I was asking. You seem rather worked up about this. Are you feeling okay? Had a little bit too much caffeine this morning, perhaps?

Are you trying to suggest that God has the form of an ape man?  That would be contrary to all Jewish theology up to the present day.  Does God have DNA?

No I said God made man in the garden first between day 3 and 4 as genesis 2 is a recounting of day 3 and 4 and everything in chapter two (starting verse 5) is all about the garden narrative and adam H121 the first man and eve.

Day 6 man was man H120 made outside of the garden. This was not Adam H121 but man kind. H120 I don't presume to assign him monkey status unless you are a evolutionist. Then I simply point to the freedom for you to do so as needed.(meaning how long you think it took between the end of creation and the fall of man)

That still doesn't justify viewing the men created in Genesis 1:26 as being different from the man created in Genesis 2. If they were the same, then Adam was created after the animals and you still have the harmonization problem that JairCrawford referenced. God, according to traditional theology, is an immaterial spirit. So what are you trying to say God meant when he said He made mankind in his image? Are you saying that by "imago dei" they meant something other than possessing a spirit or a soul? What are you suggesting was the image of God?

That said if the jews got everything their bible said... they would not still be jews. matter of fact the jew that remains today are the descendants of the pharisees that Jesus quarreled with as the Sadducees were all hunted down and executed in 70 ad, or they converted to christianity and were no longer counted as jews.

So you think the Jews got their own book wrong, but you got it right. Fascinating, ludicrous, but fascinating. I'll simply add anti-semite to the list of your virtues.

Secondly... So? This was established genesis 1 and 2 Genesis two says man was created in his image and Adam was compatible with man as they were the same save Adam and his people had souls.

No, it does not say that in Genesis 2. The reference to man being made in God's image is in Genesis 1, thus the relevance of the passages, as they link the man created in Genesis 1 to Adam and other ensouled men. Thus the relevance.

[Drich]

How on earth does that even remotely address the question?

it invalidates the question as being dishonest in nature. in that you had to pull from several sources in a way not consistent with their use in order to formulate the argument. this is blatant trolling.

Nobody was beating you over the head, I was simply asking why you considered the instance of adam in Genesis 2 to be a name.  You quoted Strong's H120 which noted that it could mean either man or Adam.  That didn't in any sense answer the question I was asking.  You seem rather worked up about this.  Are you feeling okay?  Had a little bit too much caffeine this morning, perhaps?

just don't like being trolled on questions that matter. like this you are focusing on the strongs when the 12 or so translations should have ended the topic. it should the be put to you on why your usage of the word adam supperceeds 12 established translations of the term humanity or man kind. proper etiquette demands you explain yourself, not me. I'm the establishment I am holding the incumbent position here I represent 1000s of years worth of literary translation. You are the one encroaching with hacked source material to make a false statement.

No I said God made man in the garden first between day 3 and 4 as genesis 2 is a recounting of day 3 and 4 and everything in chapter two (starting verse 5) is all about the garden narrative and adam H121 the first man and eve.

Day 6 man was man H120 made outside of the garden. This was not Adam H121 but man kind. H120 I don't presume to assign him monkey status unless you are a evolutionist. Then I simply point to the freedom for you to do so as needed.(meaning how long you think it took between the end of creation and the fall of man)

That still doesn't justify viewing the men created in Genesis 1:26 as being different from the man created in Genesis 2.

 
You did not ask for a justification. the justification is the time line established in the beginning of Chapter two 4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. So again look back when did he make the earth and sky but before there were plants? between day 3 and 4. So between days 3 and 4 all of chapter 2 happened. the next thing God did was make Adam, and breathed a living soul into him.

So when does the man get made outside the garden according to verse 1? day 6.

That is the justification what was you stumbling block/your paradox has become the corner stone that hold this narritive together. Ironically this first stumbling block also clears the way for all other stumbling blocks to be used to also fortify the story!

If they were the same, then Adam was created after the animals and you still have the harmonization problem that JairCrawford referenced.

I did not see her problem

 

God, according to traditional theology, is an immaterial spirit.  So what are you trying to say God meant when he said He made mankind in his image?

God to us in imaterial because He calls beyond our ability to tacitly verify on demand when we are lost. God is available to His Children. God the Spirit is immaterial God the Son and God the Father are not. So far as I understand things.

 

Are you saying that by "imago dei" they meant something other than possessing a spirit or a soul?  What are you suggesting was the image of God?

image physical likeness. not a photo copy or a clone but a physical being that represents God. I stood before Jesus on my judgement dream He was smaller than I was but built as a man none the less.

So you think the Jews got their own book wrong, but you got it right.

yes, every Christian knows this to be true. because the jews who got it right are no longer called Jews are they?

 

Fascinating, ludicrous, but fascinating.  I'll simply add anti-semite to the list of your virtues.

add it to the list of messanic jews as well. as they are no longer bound by the laws of judaism.

Secondly... So? This was established genesis 1 and 2 Genesis two says man was created in his image and Adam was compatible with man as they were the same save Adam and his people had souls.

No, it does not say that in Genesis 2.  

it does as God in chapter two God took a lump of clay ad FASHIONED MAN and breathed a living soul into him then refer to him later on as ADAM.

The reference to man being made in God's image is in Genesis 1, thus the relevance of the passages, as they link the man created in Genesis 1 to Adam and other ensouled men.  Thus the relevance.

the use of your hebrew word is the same moreor less context/commonplace noun versus proper masculine noun. the words man and the word Adam is working like a double edged sword against you. in chapter one God made adam h120 in his image. Chapter two God made adam h120 and breathed a living soul into him and placed Adam h121 in the garden. God never placed adams h120 in the garden.

Adam h121 was in the garden a long long time perhaps long enough for all of evolution to have taken place. we know through the genealogies that Adam h121 was in the garden till about 6000 years ago. Now man outside if your an evolutionist was man made in God's image (whatever attributes those may have been) but either way we do know Adam's h121 kids were compatible with the sons of adam h120 as they married and were given unto marriage with the children of 'adam h120

h121 Adam the first man's name
h120 Man/humanity in general

Do you get the point or did I loose you?

God created adam h120 day 6 outside the garden

God also created adam/man and placed this singular/first man in the garden and called him by name "Adam."

So when I say so what to your reference in gen 5 I am saying God calls adam who is physically compatible to day 6 man also created in his image, but with one extra bit... that bit being the soul.

[Minimalist]

The nativity stories are totally different because they were invented by different authors at different times for different audiences.  That's because the original story lacked any nativity story at all.  It will piss xhristards off no end but "jesus evolved."

You're referring to Markan Priority and the synoptic problem. Yes, there are discrepancies and they were written by different authors. That does not, however, require us to make the jump to the conclusion that the whole nativity was fabricated. That is a speculation.

No, it is not speculation at all to state that the original story - so-called "Mark" - lacked any reference at all to the nativity.  That is a FACT.  If you do not know what a fact is, look it up.  Neither is it speculation to state that the two elaborations on "mark" from the so-called matthew and luke narratives were in large part copied from it and that as it had no nativity story they obviously felt compelled to invent one.  They differ from each other in virtually every significant detail.  This is also a fact. 

You have no primary sources for your godboy tales.  No Greco-Roman writer* until the late 2d century ever heard of anyone named "jesus" even if they had heard of xtians.... or more likely "Chrestians" as Suetonius and Tacitus wrote. 

I'm am really not interested in your beliefs about fairy tales.  I want to see facts.  And better scholars than you admit they don't have any.


*The fact that 4th century xtians felt compelled to forge "jesus" into Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" merely proves that they too were embarrassed by the godboys' lack of impact on history.  So embarrassed that they committed fraud.

---

And dripshit.....stop telling Jews how to be Jews.  They are way beyond your childish attempts at understanding the gibberish that their ancient forefathers scribbled out.

http://etzion.org.il/en/shiur-4a-duplica...ion-part-1

The awareness that the Torah contains many instances of duplication, as well as contradictions between different sources, has always existed. Chazal address these phenomena in many places, and note them using expressions such as, "Two biblical verses contradict one another"; "one verse says… while another verse says…." The commentators broaden the discussion even further, and propose different explanations for the phenomena of repetition and contradiction in Tanakh, both in relation to contradictions between different textual units, and in relation to contradictions that occur within one single unit.

To illustrate the phenomenon, let us list some of the better-known contradictions.

1.            The most famous would seem to be the two descriptions of the Creation, as set forth in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Bereishit. Chapter 1 suggests that first the plants were created (verses 11-12), followed by animals (verses 20-25), and finally man – male and female together (verse 27). In chapter 2, by contrast, man is created first (verse 7), followed by vegetation (verses 8-9), with the text emphasizing that there was no point in creating plants prior to the appearance of man, and animals are created only in order to serve as a "helpmate" to man (verses 18-20). Woman, too, is created at a later stage, from one of Man's ribs (verses 21-23).

You're just making yourself look stupid...although you must be used to that by now.

[JairCrawford]

You're referring to Markan Priority and the synoptic problem. Yes, there are discrepancies and they were written by different authors. That does not, however, require us to make the jump to the conclusion that the whole nativity was fabricated. That is a speculation.

No, it is not speculation at all to state that the original story - so-called "Mark" - lacked any reference at all to the nativity.  That is a FACT.  If you do not know what a fact is, look it up.  Neither is it speculation to state that the two elaborations on "mark" from the so-called matthew and luke narratives were in large part copied from it and that as it had no nativity story they obviously felt compelled to invent one.  They differ from each other in virtually every significant detail.  This is also a fact. 

You have no primary sources for your godboy tales.  No Greco-Roman writer* until the late 2d century ever heard of anyone named "jesus" even if they had heard of xtians.... or more likely "Chrestians" as Suetonius and Tacitus wrote. 

I'm am really not interested in your beliefs about fairy tales.  I want to see facts.  And better scholars than you admit they don't have any.


*The fact that 4th century xtians felt compelled to forge "jesus" into Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" merely proves that they too were embarrassed by the godboys' lack of impact on history.  So embarrassed that they committed fraud.

---

You are correct in that Mark has no nativity story whatsoever. And you are correct that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used Mark (or a Proto-Mark) as a source. I never denied that those are facts. I said, to completely disregard any form of the nativity as completely fabricated just from the above information is taking a leap, and thus, speculative.

As for primary sources outside of the Bible, there is Josephus, although I have noted that you are asserting that fourth century Christians fabricated the entire Testimonium, so I can presume you do not consider it a viable source at all.

However, that fourth century Christians fabricated the entirety of the Testimonium is not known fact. There is not a consensus among scholars that attests to this theory. What -is- known fact is that Christians at one point -did- tamper with the text. If you remove the most obvious additions (i.e. "He was the Christ"), you still have a perfectly plausible original Josephan text. The argument from silence is also not enough to remove the plausibility. I will read more on the argument from silence on it in the near future. But ultimately to assert that the whole Testimonium is fabricated is based on theory and thus speculative.

Im not here to preach about my beliefs, just have some good honest discussions. Now if people question my spiritual beliefs, I will defend and explain them to the best of my ability, but I do not expect you to necessarily agree. In the same way, if someone asks for evidence, I will try to present my case to the best of my ability. But ultimately I'm just discussing life with fellow people here.

[Foxaèr]

Almost certainly, non-viable sources, tampering; it's almost as though one who supports the bible has veritably, through chosen wording, shown the book to be the fiction it is.

[Angrboda]

How on earth does that even remotely address the question?

it invalidates the question as being dishonest in nature. in that you had to pull from several sources in a way not consistent with their use in order to formulate the argument. this is blatant trolling.

Nobody was beating you over the head, I was simply asking why you considered the instance of adam in Genesis 2 to be a name.  You quoted Strong's H120 which noted that it could mean either man or Adam.  That didn't in any sense answer the question I was asking.  You seem rather worked up about this.  Are you feeling okay?  Had a little bit too much caffeine this morning, perhaps?

just don't like being trolled on questions that matter. like this you are focusing on the strongs when the 12 or so translations should have ended the topic. it should the be put to you on why your usage of the word adam supperceeds 12 established translations of the term humanity or man kind. proper etiquette demands you explain yourself, not me. I'm the establishment I am holding the incumbent position here I represent 1000s of years worth of literary translation. You are the one encroaching with hacked source material to make a false statement.

No I said God made man in the garden first between day 3 and 4 as genesis 2 is a recounting of day 3 and 4 and everything in chapter two (starting verse 5) is all about the garden narrative and adam H121 the first man and eve.

Day 6 man was man H120 made outside of the garden. This was not Adam H121 but man kind. H120 I don't presume to assign him monkey status unless you are a evolutionist. Then I simply point to the freedom for you to do so as needed.(meaning how long you think it took between the end of creation and the fall of man)

That still doesn't justify viewing the men created in Genesis 1:26 as being different from the man created in Genesis 2.

 
You did not ask for a justification. the justification is the time line established in the beginning of Chapter two 4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. So again look back when did he make the earth and sky but before there were plants? between day 3 and 4. So between days 3 and 4 all of chapter 2 happened. the next thing God did was make Adam, and breathed a living soul into him.

So when does the man get made outside the garden according to verse 1? day 6.

That is the justification what was you stumbling block/your paradox has become the corner stone that hold this narritive together. Ironically this first stumbling block also clears the way for all other stumbling blocks to be used to also fortify the story!

If they were the same, then Adam was created after the animals and you still have the harmonization problem that JairCrawford referenced.

I did not see her problem

 

God, according to traditional theology, is an immaterial spirit.  So what are you trying to say God meant when he said He made mankind in his image?

God to us in imaterial because He calls beyond our ability to tacitly verify on demand when we are lost. God is available to His Children. God the Spirit is immaterial God the Son and God the Father are not. So far as I understand things.

 

Are you saying that by "imago dei" they meant something other than possessing a spirit or a soul?  What are you suggesting was the image of God?

image physical likeness. not a photo copy or a clone but a physical being that represents God. I stood before Jesus on my judgement dream He was smaller than I was but built as a man none the less.

So you think the Jews got their own book wrong, but you got it right.

yes, every Christian knows this to be true. because the jews who got it right are no longer called Jews are they?

 

Fascinating, ludicrous, but fascinating.  I'll simply add anti-semite to the list of your virtues.

add it to the list of messanic jews as well. as they are no longer bound by the laws of judaism.

Secondly... So? This was established genesis 1 and 2 Genesis two says man was created in his image and Adam was compatible with man as they were the same save Adam and his people had souls.

No, it does not say that in Genesis 2.  

it does as God in chapter two God took a lump of clay ad FASHIONED MAN and breathed a living soul into him then refer to him later on as ADAM.

The reference to man being made in God's image is in Genesis 1, thus the relevance of the passages, as they link the man created in Genesis 1 to Adam and other ensouled men.  Thus the relevance.

the use of your hebrew word is the same moreor less context/commonplace noun versus proper masculine noun. the words man and the word Adam is working like a double edged sword against you. in chapter one God made adam h120 in his image. Chapter two God made adam h120 and breathed a living soul into him and placed Adam h121 in the garden. God never placed adams h120 in the garden.

Adam h121 was in the garden a long long time perhaps long enough for all of evolution to have taken place. we know through the genealogies that Adam h121 was in the garden till about 6000 years ago. Now man outside if your an evolutionist was man made in God's image (whatever attributes those may have been) but either way we do know Adam's h121 kids were compatible with the sons of adam h120 as they married and were given unto marriage with the children of 'adam h120

h121 Adam the first man's name
h120 Man/humanity in general

Do you get the point or did I loose you?

God created adam h120 day 6 outside the garden

God also created adam/man and placed this singular/first man in the garden and called him by name "Adam."

So when I say so what to your reference in gen 5 I am saying God calls adam who is physically compatible to day 6 man also created in his image, but with one extra bit... that bit being the soul.

So, let me see if I follow you. You're saying, based upon your interpretation of a supposed difference in timeline in Genesis 2, that God created man in his image on day three, and he then again created man in his image on day 6, and that likeness was a physical one, not a spiritual one? That day 6 man, day 3 man, and God were all genetically compatible?

I must say that's a novel heresy, if nothing else.

Curious though, why did God give dominion over the beasts and birds and whatnot to day 6 man, but not to day 3 man? Do we not then have dominion over the earth?

[Minimalist]

What is the bigger leap? The original tale had no nativity story...neither does the last, BTW...but the two fanfics do and they disagree with each other extensively. Which was it? The one from 4-6 BC where Herod the great is alive or the one from 6 AD where Quirinius is presiding over an absurd world wide census that never happened? These are your problems. I am convinced that these xtian writers were simply making shit up for their respective groups.

And as far as Josephus is concerned not a single writer not xtian or pagan ever refers to that forgery prior to the 4th century... Including Origen who specifically cites book 18 of Antiquities and says that Josephus does not know Christ.

The TF has been resurrected (pun intended) for the same reason it was originally forged. Jesus freaks are embarrassed that their boy made no mark on history.

[JairCrawford]

What is the bigger leap? The original tale had no nativity story...neither does the last, BTW...but the two fanfics do and they disagree with each other extensively. Which was it? The one from 4-6 BC where Herod the great is alive or the one from 6 AD where Quirinius is presiding over an absurd world wide census that never happened? These are your problems. I am convinced that these xtian writers were simply making shit up for their respective groups.

And as far as Josephus is concerned not a single writer not xtian or pagan ever refers to that forgery prior to the 4th century... Including Origen who specifically cites book 18 of Antiquities and says that Josephus does not know Christ.

The TF has been resurrected (pun intended) for the same reason it was originally forged. Jesus freaks are embarrassed that their boy made no mark on history.

To answer that, both accounts would have to be looked at for their similarities and differences. If a common kernel can be found to be plausible, then the entire account can't be asserted to be factually fabricated with total certainty.

Keep in mind, it was custom for the contemporary Jews during the time of Jesus to memorize liturgy orally and recite it. It is plausible that this same thing applied to the early forms of what became parts of the gospels, thus a source for passing down the nativity account among other things.

What did Origen mean by that? Is he implying that Josephus didn't know who Jesus was at all? Or that he didn't -know- Him? As in, Josephus wasn't a Christian (which makes sense because we know Josephus was Jewish)? I'm genuinely asking as I need to do more reading on the argument from silence regarding the Testimonium.

[Foxaèr]

To answer that, both accounts would have to be looked at for their similarities and differences. If a common kernel can be found to be plausible, then the entire account can't be asserted to be factually fabricated with total certainty.

What did Origen mean by that? Is he implying that Josephus didn't know who Jesus was at all? Or that he didn't -know- Him? As in, Josephus wasn't a Christian (which makes sense because we know Josephus was Jewish)? I'm genuinely asking as I need to do more reading on the argument from silence regarding the Testimonium.

If a common kernel can be found? Bitch, now you're just motherfucking reaching, straight to nonsense land where all that imaginary poppycock exists that fuels your illogical faith.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop being such a goddamn apologist.

[JairCrawford]

To answer that, both accounts would have to be looked at for their similarities and differences. If a common kernel can be found to be plausible, then the entire account can't be asserted to be factually fabricated with total certainty.

What did Origen mean by that? Is he implying that Josephus didn't know who Jesus was at all? Or that he didn't -know- Him? As in, Josephus wasn't a Christian (which makes sense because we know Josephus was Jewish)? I'm genuinely asking as I need to do more reading on the argument from silence regarding the Testimonium.

If a common kernel can be found? Bitch, now you're just motherfucking reaching, straight to nonsense land where all that imaginary poppycock exists that fuels your illogical faith.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop being such a goddamn apologist.

Again, if someone questions my beliefs, I am naturally going to respond. I don't expect you to agree, or take me seriously even for that matter. That is out of my control.