Genesis interpretations - how many are there?

[Drich]

Give me any reason to side with that wall of shit over the rabbinic interpretation, Drich.  You;re arguing with jewish tradition..over what jewish tradition is or should be.  May as well argue with me about my daughters name.

Well one retard nothing the Jews say about Genesis 1 jives with 'science' unless they declare everything metaphore. They have no state in orgins. they do not care how it washes out. 

That said Again, the primary form of judaism that survived the destruction of the temple was Rabbinic Judaism which is the foundation of modern judaism. This is because the primary belief before then was with the teachings of the Sadducees. But they were blamed for the up rising of jerusalem in 68.

Why is this important? It is not unless you are concerned with what the God of the bible more specifically JEsus thought, and reached.

So then the question becomes what did jesus think about Rabbinic judaism and the pharisees?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=NKJV

Jesus pretty much takes a whole chapter above outlines their failures as teachers and guides for the spiritually minded and tells them they are going to hell for their teachings... The same core teaching you cant find anything wrong with...

Remember not all the jews were killed back then. they just (then and now) stop self identifying as a jew/rabbinic jew when they find God. Those who do not find God are the remnant or legacy of the pharisees. For jewish tradition they are an authority. for finding God, they will at some point in the near future.

---

[cough, cough]

Genesis 10  (KJV)
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Genesis 11   (KJV)
11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

what was beyond the earth? rather what does the term "whole earth" mean to a person who lived back then?

---

The fact that not even all Christians can even agree on whether the first story is literal or not shows you just how bad a job God did communicating. You'd think he could at least come and clear that bit up, to get them started.

Funnily enough, atheists seem to pretty much all agree on what happened there.

Actually it show how little you understand of the faith/religion.

the fact that we can't agree shows how unique and diverse we are some given to greater understandings like this and other have other talents and strengths. What's most important and the part you don't ever seem to get is we are not judged by how much of this we know or can fathom. we are simply asked to do our best with what we have. sure some miss the mark but THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ATONEMENT!

---

So..just to make sure I;m seeing this right..is Drich, above, claiming to have a private line to god..... that;s vouched for his personal version of the story and declared it to be infallible now and forever?

That;s some desperate shit.

Hey moron Act2 and luke 11 says we all can have a private line to God it not a drich thing. it is a christian thing. why else do you think this religion has lasted for so long despite of the works of people such as yourself? It is because God delivers on those private lines sport. God shows up for those who play by his rules and he shows no mercy to those who don't want to 'get it.'

---

Really? Wow. Well let's say I have one too, and he's wrong. How would we settle this, I wonder?

God does not stray from what is written... all you need do is show me book chapter and verse where I am wrong. if you can't then it is you who is wrong.

---

Seriously Drich, my personal reputation is not in any danger.  Neither, sadly to say, is yours.

But thank you for your concern.

wow all the dishonesty I pointed out and you feel your reputation will not suffer? what does that say about your peers? or what does it say about your honor here?what does it say about the level or desire to obtain truth? how can I repeatedly demonstrate a lack, or intentional failure of understanding like your supposed finding that God created Adam outside the garden and there was no need for a second narrative, when just two or three lines later he is laced right back in the garden you allude he had nothing to do with? yet that attempt at decite does not degrade you before others?

It is obvious you read everything how did you miss that? answer is you didn't.. you are intentionally trolling or grounding the topic.. Again that is a deceitful and dishonest practice that has been repeated at least 4 or 5 times this week!

I once held you to a higher standard than that. this puts you in line with some of the scummier people here. you don't care abot the topics or seeking the truth you are just looking for weakness.

what does it say to your peers when your accused weaknesses are beaten back and are forced down your throat by a person you hold in such little regard? 
you: Ooo Ooo Drich Adam was created outside the garden so your whole garden narritive is moot..

Me: DENIED Troll! Read verse 15 forward! Adam was placed in the garden hence the need for the second narritive!

You: Ooo Ooo I don't understand the term "head of the church to mean the authority of God so even though it is clear the nazi's sought to make hitler the head of the church I have this loop hole and will press it to make you look stupid.

Me: DENIED TROLL! Your failure to understand common Christian vocabulary points to your lack of basic christian understanding. The Nazi's know more of what the head of the church signifies Here are two book chapter and verses that show what the head of the church means to all of christendom. here is a vatican example of the acknowledgement of what the head of the church means.. your loop hole just became a noose

Even if you rep is not hurt by being dishonest you peer must look at you last two failures against someone like me. Someone looked down and reviled upon someone you all constantly portray as not meeting the education standard for being seen as a rival intelect. as a BIG fail on your part. after all if you can't hold you own against a stupid christian, then how can you claim the intellect you pretend to have?

[vorlon13]

---

[cough, cough]

Genesis 10  (KJV)
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Genesis 11   (KJV)
11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

what was beyond the earth? rather what does the term "whole earth" mean to a person who lived back then?

---

What does the meaning of "whole earth" to a person back then have to do with this when this is GOD'S WORDS ? What is the meaning of "whole earth" to GOD ??

[Drich]

why not read it yourself and make up your own mind?

Yes I did and that's why I concluded it was bullshit. Not just that but Bible is supposed to be this profound book and yet it contains the same old story of magician creating the world - there is nothing profound about it. There were lots of stories like that already, like Prometheus creating man from clay, so what makes this one "true"? - Because it claims to be so.

But if someone was to approach all these interpretations and think which one to choose he could say that "Old Earth Creationists" are wrong because they also mix in Vedic mythology in it, but then "Evolutionist-creationists" mix outsider books in their interpretation of Genesis which are science books and even Young Earth Creationists mix science with the Bible because science (study of nature) tells us that world is round and is circling around the Sun. So the only ones who are completely true to the Bible are Flat Earthers.

what is the base elemental make up for "dust" carbon... what are we made of?? carbon

If dust was made of carbon we would all be dead by now from black lung disease.

coal is also made from carbon but is not carbon itself. coal contain quite a few other elements that is why it burns. carbon, pure carbon does not burn. think of diamonds that is pure compressed and heat treated carbon.

That and 'science' identifies us as carbon based life. dust is 90% skin cells so dust contain a lot of carbon.

That said the bible never claims to have had a magic made create anything. that is a weak minded/unexamined view of a process you dont want to understand. if you don't understand it it can be swept away without thought or arguement.

[The Grand Nudger]

Give me any reason to side with that wall of shit over the rabbinic interpretation, Drich.  You;re arguing with jewish tradition..over what jewish tradition is or should be.  May as well argue with me about my daughters name.

Well one retard nothing the Jews say about Genesis 1 jives with 'science' unless they declare everything metaphore. They have no state in orgins. they do not care how it washes out. 

I;m not sure why that should bother you.  Nothing you have to say on the subject "jives with science" either...but the rabbinic interpretation does have the benefit of stating that god is neither so stupid he would get this stuff wrong, nor so malicious that he would intentionally mislead the faithful.  Much of genesis is intentionally metaphoric...but of the rest....if we find that some item in the stories did not or could not have happened..what sense would it make to deny reality? 

On that count..their interpretation "jives with science" to an immeasurably greater degree than your own..because it simply concedes that the world is as it is..regardless of how some poet chose to express the relationship between god, man, and the universe.....whether he got something wrong (no surprise there, lol)...or whether you as a reader fail to appreciate allegory, metaphor, or idiom.   

You;ve failed to give me any reason not to accept that their story means what they say it does, or that it should be read in the manner they suggest.  Airing your own personal grievances with the rabbinic tradition isn;t going to meet that bar.  

You;re a loon.  You have loon beliefs over and above the contents or requirements of magic book.  They are unnecessary, they are wrong, and it is foolish to saddle yourself or your faith with them.

Why is this important? It is not unless you are concerned with what the God of the bible more specifically JEsus thought, and reached.

A literal reading of genesis is wholly irrelevant to the contents of the NT. This is not only a statement of fact, but a statement of the consensus of christian opinion. Like the above, this position has the benefit of not requiring that a person falsify their own faith..... or debase themselves as morons...in order to hold that faith.

[Drich]

---

what was beyond the earth? rather what does the term "whole earth" mean to a person who lived back then?

---

What does the meaning of "whole earth" to a person back then have to do with this when this is GOD'S WORDS ?   What is the meaning of "whole earth" to GOD ??

is God writing to Himself in the bible, or a person who lived back then?

This is where you a-hole always f yourselves in what you pretend to be logic. The bible is not God. The bible never claims to be God. The bible never claims to be complete or perfect text book. therefore you examine the bible with a measure it was not designed to be examined by. then you think you find a flaw. and as I pointed out to you the flaw is in your thought process. Here you think the bible is written to you and english reading and speaking person.

If you weren't a pompus know it all/nothing a simple google search would tell you the world back then meant the civilized world the tamed part where people lived. the hebrew word being:תֵּבֵל têbêl, tay-bale'  So what was outside the world? the desert the wilderness. So what does it mean the whole world spoke one language? that means everyone who lived in that time in that region spoke the same language.

Now riddle me this sport how is that any different than saying everyone who spoke in france speak french? So again sport so we don't loose intent and the meaning of the message, to whom was the bible written to you? to God? to a man who lived 4000 years ago? So then why not look at what is written through His eyes?



See what happens when you use your head from something other than bad hair cuts and a place to sprinkle on rogaine?

[The Grand Nudger]

God didn;t write magic book, loon.

[Angrboda]

Seriously Drich, my personal reputation is not in any danger.  Neither, sadly to say, is yours.

But thank you for your concern.

wow all the dishonesty I pointed out and you feel your reputation will not suffer? what does that say about your peers? or what does it say about your honor here?what does it say about the level or desire to obtain truth? how can I repeatedly demonstrate a lack, or intentional failure of understanding like your supposed finding that God created Adam outside the garden and there was no need for a second narrative, when just two or three lines later he is laced right back in the garden you allude he had nothing to do with? yet that attempt at decite does not degrade you before others?

It is obvious you read everything how did you miss that? answer is you didn't.. you are intentionally trolling or grounding the topic.. Again that is a deceitful and dishonest practice that has been repeated at least 4 or 5 times this week!

I once held you to a higher standard than that. this puts you in line with some of the scummier people here. you don't care abot the topics or seeking the truth you are just looking for weakness.

what does it say to your peers when your accused weaknesses are beaten back and are forced down your throat by a person you hold in such little regard? 
you: Ooo Ooo Drich Adam was created outside the garden so your whole garden narritive is moot..

Me: DENIED Troll! Read verse 15 forward! Adam was placed in the garden hence the need for the second narritive!

You: Ooo Ooo I don't understand the term "head of the church to mean the authority of God so even though it is clear the nazi's sought to make hitler the head of the church I have this loop hole and will press it to make you look stupid.

Me: DENIED TROLL! Your failure to understand common Christian vocabulary points to your lack of basic christian understanding. The Nazi's know more of what the head of the church signifies Here are two book chapter and verses that show what the head of the church means to all of christendom. here is a vatican example of the acknowledgement of what the head of the church means.. your loop hole just became a noose

Even if you rep is not hurt by being dishonest you peer must look at you last two failures against someone like me. Someone looked down and reviled upon someone you all constantly portray as not meeting the education standard for being seen as a rival intelect. as a BIG fail on your part. after all if you can't hold you own against a stupid christian, then how can you claim the intellect you pretend to have?

Or..... it could be that you're a deluded moron who thinks things that are not reasonable to believe. Gee. I wonder which is more reasonable?

[Drich]

I;m not sure why that should bother you.

Because you still don't get it.. my way We can have the bible word for word and still accept darwin's BS if we need that as well to pass to intolerant science class. This way no one is made to choose one or the other we can literally have a seven day creation and change absolutly NOTHING in the bible only the way we read it or the way we were taught to read it. the words stay the same the meaning and artificial time lines are removed.

  Nothing you have to say on the subject "jives with science" either..

Hey dummy everything CAN. with no time line between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3 all of 'science' can fit well with in the garden narritive.

.but the rabbinic interpretation does have the benefit of stating that god is neither so stupid he would get this stuff wrong, nor so malicious that he would intentionally mislead the faithful.

 God no, but his well intentioned teachers? Jesus pointed out that was their biggest fault.. not understanding scripture.

Much of genesis is intentionally metaphoric...but of the rest....if we find that some item in the stories did not or could not have happened..what sense would it make to deny reality? 

we have historical documentation from secular sources for many of the things written in the bible. the king of babylon reordes sending armies to mine all of the bricks left over from the tower of bable to short cut his own building projects.

The ark is definitely doable if you honor how it was written and not add scientific narrative to change the flood events. Plus again you have to stick to what was written and not assume. we haven't had a walk through in recent month on noah.. want to know why? because the last time I shut you clowns down with plausible scientific truth... before you say something stupid look it up.

On that count..their interpretation "jives with science" to an immeasurably greater degree than your own..because it simply concedes that the world is at it is..regardless of how some poet chose to express the relationship between god, man, and the universe.  

God you are blind. my side does not change ANYTHING on EITHER SIDE!!! I do not change the 7 day literal account nor anything written in darwinism... The only thing I do is remove the unwritten time line. that's it. I also then show it is possible because the tradition reading of gen 1-chapter 3 is a chronological order. I obliterate that bad understanding by simply making chapter one include the 7th day of creation and allow chapter two to speak for it self meaning it start out by saying these events happened on 3 three after dry land but before day 4 when God made plants.. which means everythin in chapter two is the garden account that happened right after dry land and before plants, which can not be chronologically correct with the fall and chapter 3 as the fall would have happened during creation before day 6 man was ready to receive Adam's people. Once you can admit that the traditional reading and time lines are wrong anything can be place between the end of chapter 2 and the fall of man. Again not one word of either accounts need to change, only wrongly taught perception handed down by no thinking traditionalists. who value tradition over actual active worship of God.

You;ve failed to give me any reason not to accept that their story means what they say it does, or that it should be read in the manner they suggest. 

No i didn't .. if you were wanting to frame your words accuratly you should say i do not like or want to agree with your reasons.. You can not say I did not offer a reason. I did, in that the current understanding of this passage from a jewish perspective was hand down by a system the Jesus Christ Himself condemned and reviled. If again not good enough for Jesus Christ, not good enough for anyone who seeks to worship the God of the bible as Christ outlines. If that is not a reason for you personally so what... You are not being courted here. it is to those who have this question but do not ask it that seek the truth that i am responding to.

Airing your own personal grievances with the rabbinic tradition isn;t going to meet that bar.  

Do you wrongly ascribe the title Son of God to me? because again that is who had grievances with the rabbinic teachers of his day, which save a few customary differences teach the same thing today. Again to prove the point I gave you a whole chapter of Jesus railing on those who taught what you seek to preserve as the gold standard..

Why do you do it? because it s easy to google and find arguments that over turn the rabbinic explanation or they have compromised themselves so much in going with 'science' they have forsaken their worship of God. My way... your not smart enough to break my way. you can't google a easy argument, dawkins or carrier hasn't youtube a crap argument on what I've said. so you need the traditional explanation or you are left without a defence, at best you have to take a idk approach least you have me break you BS down and consume your beliefs with mine.

You;re a loon.  You have loon beliefs over and above the contents of magic book.  They are unnecessary, they are wrong, and it is foolish to saddle yourself or your  faith with them.

if I am sooo crazy (which ad hoc attack is the last desperate act of a failed intellect) why can't you meet me on the simple terms I've laid out here? again all I did was expose and remove an artificial time line the church places on said event which makes everything you want to believe fit the 7 day creation narrative. what the problem is fool? you get everything you want and the christian get to hold on to the 7 day creation.. Thought morons like you would be happen about this... you no longer have to try and take away someone's deeply held religious beliefs in order for them to be apart of your 'science club' that means more members for you!

---

wow all the dishonesty I pointed out and you feel your reputation will not suffer? what does that say about your peers? or what does it say about your honor here?what does it say about the level or desire to obtain truth? how can I repeatedly demonstrate a lack, or intentional failure of understanding like your supposed finding that God created Adam outside the garden and there was no need for a second narrative, when just two or three lines later he is laced right back in the garden you allude he had nothing to do with? yet that attempt at decite does not degrade you before others?

It is obvious you read everything how did you miss that? answer is you didn't.. you are intentionally trolling or grounding the topic.. Again that is a deceitful and dishonest practice that has been repeated at least 4 or 5 times this week!

I once held you to a higher standard than that. this puts you in line with some of the scummier people here. you don't care abot the topics or seeking the truth you are just looking for weakness.

what does it say to your peers when your accused weaknesses are beaten back and are forced down your throat by a person you hold in such little regard? 
you: Ooo Ooo Drich Adam was created outside the garden so your whole garden narritive is moot..

Me: DENIED Troll! Read verse 15 forward! Adam was placed in the garden hence the need for the second narritive!

You: Ooo Ooo I don't understand the term "head of the church to mean the authority of God so even though it is clear the nazi's sought to make hitler the head of the church I have this loop hole and will press it to make you look stupid.

Me: DENIED TROLL! Your failure to understand common Christian vocabulary points to your lack of basic christian understanding. The Nazi's know more of what the head of the church signifies Here are two book chapter and verses that show what the head of the church means to all of christendom. here is a vatican example of the acknowledgement of what the head of the church means.. your loop hole just became a noose

Even if you rep is not hurt by being dishonest you peer must look at you last two failures against someone like me. Someone looked down and reviled upon someone you all constantly portray as not meeting the education standard for being seen as a rival intelect. as a BIG fail on your part. after all if you can't hold you own against a stupid christian, then how can you claim the intellect you pretend to have?

Or.....  it could be that you're a deluded moron who thinks things that are not reasonable to believe.  Gee.  I wonder which is more reasonable?

senseability or a reasonable belief has to do with experience no? Do you honestly think I have live a mirror to your life, but simply unreasonably come to a different conclusion about God?

IDK what if EVERTHING I ever shared with you all was 100% to the best of my ability true? would it not then be reasonable FOR ME if I keep getting input and stimuli from what the bible describes as the Holy Spirit, to believe in God?

Reason/sensibility are variables which yield different levels of understanding and belief. if you have no exposure to God then yes it is reasonable for you to go down a certain path. however if you choose to ignore what God offers us/share with you the Holy Spirit, then that becomes the unreasonable bit

---

God didn;t write magic book, loon.

I'm the one that keeps telling you that. there is no magic here, it is only magic to those who do not understand the processes God used. I'm the one that says God is a being afar advanced from us and his efforts to dumb people look like magic. Your the moron who need God to be magic, inorder to keep your life's work in tact! I can have a magic God or a God of superior technology and science I don't need to think of God as a grand pa who trades wishes for good deeds. My god can be that if he wishes or he can be a trans dimensional alien who tech far exceeds our own and to mullet wearing retards it looks like magic when ever he does something. You are the magic man your the one who need to battle the idea of sorcerers. I don't. The God of the bible is the alpha and omega that is all the description we get, which means we can potentially fill in the blank as to who god is to us with anything. You however are locked in the bronze age because you can get your little mind around a magic sky daddy build by shepherds. and when corrected you literally keep returning to this specific well... look at yourself douche bag! seriously I am moving this conversation past your antiquated little man version of God and you keep coming back to it... is this the only way you can stay relevant? Is the goat herder god the only one you can refute? what happen doesn't dawkins or anyone else have a you tube video on how to mock a god any bigger than the magic man you keep referring to?

[Angrboda]

Or.....  it could be that you're a deluded moron who thinks things that are not reasonable to believe.  Gee.  I wonder which is more reasonable?

senseability or a reasonable belief has to do with experience no? Do you honestly think I have live a mirror to your life, but simply unreasonably come to a different conclusion about God?

IDK what if EVERTHING I ever shared with you all was 100% to the best of my ability true? would it not then be reasonable FOR ME if I keep getting input and stimuli from what the bible describes as the Holy Spirit, to believe in God?

Reason/sensibility are variables which yield different levels of understanding and belief. if you have no exposure to God then yes it is reasonable for you to go down a certain path. however if you choose to ignore what God offers us/share with you the Holy Spirit, then that becomes the unreasonable bit

You're missing a few gears in your wheelhouse, friend. I wasn't talking about your beliefs but about your base ability to reason, as displayed in recent arguments.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because you still don't get it.. my way We can have the bible word for word and still accept darwin's BS if we need that as well to pass to intolerant science class. This way no one is made to choose one or the other we can literally have a seven day creation and change absolutly NOTHING in the bible only the way we read it or the way we were taught to read it. the words stay the same the meaning and artificial time lines are removed.

First you have a grievance with jewish traditions...now it;s all about your grievance with biology.  We;ve discussed your monkey man without a soul hypothesis..and all of the ways it still flies in the face of biology before...your insistence that engaging in this ridculous shit somehow gets magic book out of the doghouse is nothing more than an effect of your delusions.  In truth, it makes your religion even more risible than it already was for absolutely no reason whatsoever.  

Meanwhile...neither the rabbinic tradition nor the consensus view of christianity are in the doghouse to begin with.