Interracial Marriage and the Bible

[Godscreated]

Yes they had slaves, the Jewish slaves were paying off debt and after seven years were freed. The slaves out side the nation of Israel were keep for life, much like what happened in this country. You want to pick on the writers of the Bible yet you ignore that slavery is worse today than it's ever been, why do you ignore this. Today's slaves are own by the secular world since you belong to that category should we start defining you as someone who approves of slavery?

GC

Just so we are all clear on what just happened, you first denied that the Bible was written by racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists, saying that the authors were "none of those things," and now you admit that they were slave drivers.  Right?

No, I said they did own slaves, I didn't say they drove slaves to death.

I'll gladly answer the bottom half of your post but I just wanted to clarify this first.

Why would you need to clarify one to answer the other I believe I made it quite clear the first time. You dislike of Christians leads you to see things in our answers that's not there, a sign of.... well maybe something you want to get checked out.

GC

[Nihilist Virus]

Lol, I understand your argument, and on some level it is actually clever.  

I would say thank you if it were mine. It's just common sense, once you actually stick to the literal narritive and only account for what is and is not said in the bible then, cut all other traditionally held beliefs away. This is what is left. So again not my narrative this is what God left for us thousands and thousands of years before their was any knowledge of the fossil record.

Perhaps the nephilim were evolved humanoids, and only Adam & Steve's descendants had actual souls.  The nephilim, being primitive animals, were evil in God's eyes so he wiped them out and only preserved a selection of Adam's line.

This is exactly my conclusion as well. In that 'monkey men' and angels could have had off spring/nephilim. One could have been named thor or loki or Hercules. that souless monkey man/evolved man was the embodiment of pure evil the worst that this planet has ever seen.. And just maybe Noah and his family was the last of the descendants of Adam that had not been eaten/corrupted by this monkey man evil. And everything that was washed away by the flood preyed and destroyed the descendants of Adam. Which is why a righteous God could and did find justification in the destruction/sterilization of the planet so that Man made in the Image of God was the only thing left to rule this planet. Via the natural choke point provided by the Ark/flood.

But if you want to say that Genesis 1 is talking about the creation of the garden of Eden, can you tell me exactly why it's saying God created all of earth when it means he created just the Garden on an earth that had already been there for billions of years?  Like always your shit makes zero sense.

My narrative does not start in Genesis 1. It starts in Genesis 2. (get to that in a minute)
This narrative can work one of two ways. My preferred belief is God 'seeded' the planet with the precursors/animals from which everything evolved. (per the most literal account of genesis 1) I think the evolution from slime/ooze is too much. but if you want/must believe that, the narrative can be adapted to fit that, in that the 'seeds' God used were protiens/DNA rather than whole very simple very primitive animals.

Also remember the Gen 1 account originally did not use words like birds or whales. the ancient Jews had no such words or classifications. that did not come til thousands of years later. The words we have in the hebrew simply describe creatures. "winged creatures" That is why the same word that is translated in Genesis one and in leviticus as "bird" can also mean bat. It does not follow the genus and philum classifications we now use. They basically had large winged creatures "birds" and they had small winged creatures "insects". So what is being described in Genesis 1 could easily be the precursor/seeds that would eventually evolve into a bird or insect, tree, whale etc...

So why do I believe that the genesis 2 is Garden only? Because Genesis two (which actually should start in verse 4, because the verses prior are still speaking about the 7th day of creation left over from the chapter 1 narrative.)
says so!

If you Read Chapter 2 starting at verse 4 (and only delete the verse notations/which were not there in the original texts)
you get(NKJV):
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Now, look at what is being described:

"this is a history of what else happened on the day after God made the heaven and earth, but before he seeded the earth, because at that point it had not even rained." Then from there it immediately describes the creation of the man then the garden.

So we look to Genesis 1 to see what day god made the Heavens and Earth (day 2) but before he seeded the earth (Day 3):9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

So in the middle of Day three Everything (between verse 10 and 11) Genesis 2 happened. (the garden, Creation of Man, the charge of care taker, creation of woman, and the freedom to eat anything in the garden except for the tree of knoweledge, this includes the tree of life which we hear about in genesis 3.)

Now what does all of this mean? that everything happening outside the garden was by the official record, was not on the same time table Garden life was on. The planet was a barren waste land (it had not rained yet for the first time no plants. only land and sea) and in the middle of it all was a lush green perfect garden that had 4 rivers flowing from it. This means the completed picture found in Garden life did not reflect the evolutionary process of everything outside the protected Garden. Which then also makes terms like the "circle of the earth" the "dome of the sky" make sense if you can picture the Garden as being placed under a cake dish or big shield that kept everything in that was supposed to be in, and everything else out.

Now if Genesis 2 happens on day three between verse 10 and 11, what makes us think that events in genesis 3 happened the very next day? (this is the YEC assumption)

Again if we speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent, we could indeed have a day 4 fall from grace (before the rest of the world was complete,) but not likly. for one genesis 1 does not support a day 4 fall from grace. So then any timeline man/the church puts on the events of genesis 3 is pure speculation. However, we do have clues and indications that life out side the garden has indeed 'caught up' to garden life. In that genesis 4 and 5 speaks of cities outside the garden and husbands and wives the children of A&E took for themselves. which according to our 'understanding' of the fossil record took millions of bazillions of years to take place.. which is fine. just as 'fine' as this whole thing taking 6000 years to do. Because in the end whatever the real number of days A&E lived in the garden, this particular narrative remains unchanged.

Ok. You want to conform to science the best you can and have your garden. Still missing the evidence that Eden ever existed and the explanation for why humans were created without understanding of sin and then punished for sinning. Also I'm curious about if you have an equally bizarre and ad hoc exegesis of the flood.

[Drich]

I would say thank you if it were mine. It's just common sense, once you actually stick to the literal narritive and only account for what is and is not said in the bible then, cut all other traditionally held beliefs away. This is what is left. So again not my narrative this is what God left for us thousands and thousands of years before their was any knowledge of the fossil record.

This is exactly my conclusion as well. In that 'monkey men' and angels could have had off spring/nephilim. One could have been named thor or loki or Hercules. that souless monkey man/evolved man was the embodiment of pure evil the worst that this planet has ever seen.. And just maybe Noah and his family was the last of the descendants of Adam that had not been eaten/corrupted by this monkey man evil. And everything that was washed away by the flood preyed and destroyed the descendants of Adam. Which is why a righteous God could and did find justification in the destruction/sterilization of the planet so that Man made in the Image of God was the only thing left to rule this planet. Via the natural choke point provided by the Ark/flood.

My narrative does not start in Genesis 1. It starts in Genesis 2. (get to that in a minute)
This narrative can work one of two ways. My preferred belief is God 'seeded' the planet with the precursors/animals from which everything evolved. (per the most literal account of genesis 1) I think the evolution from slime/ooze is too much. but if you want/must believe that, the narrative can be adapted to fit that, in that the 'seeds' God used were protiens/DNA rather than whole very simple very primitive animals.

Also remember the Gen 1 account originally did not use words like birds or whales. the ancient Jews had no such words or classifications. that did not come til thousands of years later. The words we have in the hebrew simply describe creatures. "winged creatures" That is why the same word that is translated in Genesis one and in leviticus as "bird" can also mean bat. It does not follow the genus and philum classifications we now use. They basically had large winged creatures "birds" and they had small winged creatures "insects". So what is being described in Genesis 1 could easily be the precursor/seeds that would eventually evolve into a bird or insect, tree, whale etc...

So why do I believe that the genesis 2 is Garden only? Because Genesis two (which actually should start in verse 4, because the verses prior are still speaking about the 7th day of creation left over from the chapter 1 narrative.)
says so!

If you Read Chapter 2 starting at verse 4 (and only delete the verse notations/which were not there in the original texts)
you get(NKJV):
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Now, look at what is being described:

"this is a history of what else happened on the day after God made the heaven and earth, but before he seeded the earth, because at that point it had not even rained." Then from there it immediately describes the creation of the man then the garden.

So we look to Genesis 1 to see what day god made the Heavens and Earth (day 2) but before he seeded the earth (Day 3):9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

So in the middle of Day three Everything (between verse 10 and 11) Genesis 2 happened. (the garden, Creation of Man, the charge of care taker, creation of woman, and the freedom to eat anything in the garden except for the tree of knoweledge, this includes the tree of life which we hear about in genesis 3.)

Now what does all of this mean? that everything happening outside the garden was by the official record, was not on the same time table Garden life was on. The planet was a barren waste land (it had not rained yet for the first time no plants. only land and sea) and in the middle of it all was a lush green perfect garden that had 4 rivers flowing from it. This means the completed picture found in Garden life did not reflect the evolutionary process of everything outside the protected Garden. Which then also makes terms like the "circle of the earth" the "dome of the sky" make sense if you can picture the Garden as being placed under a cake dish or big shield that kept everything in that was supposed to be in, and everything else out.

Now if Genesis 2 happens on day three between verse 10 and 11, what makes us think that events in genesis 3 happened the very next day? (this is the YEC assumption)

Again if we speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent, we could indeed have a day 4 fall from grace (before the rest of the world was complete,) but not likly. for one genesis 1 does not support a day 4 fall from grace. So then any timeline man/the church puts on the events of genesis 3 is pure speculation. However, we do have clues and indications that life out side the garden has indeed 'caught up' to garden life. In that genesis 4 and 5 speaks of cities outside the garden and husbands and wives the children of A&E took for themselves. which according to our 'understanding' of the fossil record took millions of bazillions of years to take place.. which is fine. just as 'fine' as this whole thing taking 6000 years to do. Because in the end whatever the real number of days A&E lived in the garden, this particular narrative remains unchanged.

Ok.  You want to conform to science the best you can and have your garden.  Still missing the evidence that Eden ever existed and the explanation for why humans were created without understanding of sin and then punished for sinning.  Also I'm curious about if you have an equally bizarre and ad hoc exegesis of the flood.

What do you think evidence of a garden 2/3 the size of North America would leave? What does Did Anything that 'organic' around that long ago and existed up till several thousand years ago leave? Oil. Lots and lots and lots of Oil, but because Death did not enter the garden till after the fall, no animals died which means no bones or fossils... Hmmm... the question then becomes do we have middle eastern expanse of Land that has lots of oil and no fossils??? (Which if you do not understand the implication of that You have lots of lush green fertile land, but no trace of animals.) Yes how about 90% of the middle east fits this requirement.

When you were 6 could you understand why it was wrong to commit adultry?

When you were 6 could you understand don't eat that, it may make you sick and kill you?

God did not punish them for 'sin' as they had no knowledge of it. They simply died before God.

[Angrboda]

What do you think evidence of a garden 2/3 the size of North America would leave? What does Did Anything that 'organic' around that long ago and existed up till several thousand years ago leave? Oil. Lots and lots and lots of Oil, but because Death did not enter the garden till after the fall, no animals died which means no bones or fossils... Hmmm... the question then becomes do we have middle eastern expanse of Land that has lots of oil and no fossils??? (Which if you do not understand the implication of that You have lots of lush green fertile land, but no trace of animals.) Yes how about 90% of the middle east fits this requirement.

It takes more than 6,000 years to form oil.

So how long does this process take?

Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterio...y-oil.html

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok.  You want to conform to science the best you can and have your garden.  Still missing the evidence that Eden ever existed and the explanation for why humans were created without understanding of sin and then punished for sinning.  Also I'm curious about if you have an equally bizarre and ad hoc exegesis of the flood.

What do you think evidence of a garden 2/3 the size of North America would leave? What does Did Anything that 'organic' around that long ago and existed up till several thousand years ago leave? Oil. Lots and lots and lots of Oil, but because Death did not enter the garden till after the fall, no animals died which means no bones or fossils... Hmmm... the question then becomes do we have middle eastern expanse of Land that has lots of oil and no fossils??? (Which if you do not understand the implication of that You have lots of lush green fertile land, but no trace of animals.) Yes how about 90% of the middle east fits this requirement.

When you were 6 could you understand why it was wrong to commit adultry?

When you were 6 could you understand don't eat that, it may make you sick and kill you?

God did not punish them for 'sin' as they had no knowledge of it. They simply died before God.

Firstly, if God made all that oil, can you please tell me why he gave it to the sworn enemy of Jews and Christians? Islam was on the brink of being defunct until it found the oil.

Secondly, if the necessary conditions for fossilization were absent, what conditions would cause organisms to convert into oil? You make it sound like they drop dead and turn into oil. Or are you saying the flood turned Eden animals into oil and other animals into fossils? WTF are you talking about?

Thirdly, yes I knew right and wrong at 6. But Adam had no belly button (Did he have nipples? If so, why?) and was made out of dust. He had no knowledge of good and evil until he ate of the tree, then was punished for the evil act of disobedience?

[Drich]

What do you think evidence of a garden 2/3 the size of North America would leave? What does Did Anything that 'organic' around that long ago and existed up till several thousand years ago leave? Oil. Lots and lots and lots of Oil, but because Death did not enter the garden till after the fall, no animals died which means no bones or fossils... Hmmm... the question then becomes do we have middle eastern expanse of Land that has lots of oil and no fossils??? (Which if you do not understand the implication of that You have lots of lush green fertile land, but no trace of animals.) Yes how about 90% of the middle east fits this requirement.

It takes more than 6,000 years to form oil.  

So how long does this process take?

Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterio...y-oil.html

Kinda like the amount of time from day three of creation to the 100's of bazillions of years it took for everything outside of the garden to 'catch up?'

[Angrboda]

It takes more than 6,000 years to form oil.  

Kinda like the amount of time from day three of creation to the 100's of bazillions of years it took for everything outside of the garden to 'catch up?'

Right. Adam and Eve were living in an oil filled swamp. Nice ad hoc response.

[Drich]

What do you think evidence of a garden 2/3 the size of North America would leave? What does Did Anything that 'organic' around that long ago and existed up till several thousand years ago leave? Oil. Lots and lots and lots of Oil, but because Death did not enter the garden till after the fall, no animals died which means no bones or fossils... Hmmm... the question then becomes do we have middle eastern expanse of Land that has lots of oil and no fossils??? (Which if you do not understand the implication of that You have lots of lush green fertile land, but no trace of animals.) Yes how about 90% of the middle east fits this requirement.

When you were 6 could you understand why it was wrong to commit adultry?

When you were 6 could you understand don't eat that, it may make you sick and kill you?

God did not punish them for 'sin' as they had no knowledge of it. They simply died before God.

Firstly, if God made all that oil, can you please tell me why he gave it to the sworn enemy of Jews and Christians?   Islam was on the brink of being defunct until it found the oil.

The oil sits under the sands the Garden once stood. God did not intend for them to have it. The jews and even abraham disobeyed God/Made a series of mistakes that allowed the 'enemies' grow into a powerful nation. All of that is the consequence of sin. (What happened when God said kill all the men women and children of a certain tribe of people, and they thought letting the women and children live could do no harm.)

 Their were several choke points where the 'enemies' of the Jews/God could have been totally wiped out, but "moral man" thought they knew better. God knows the events of what a given butterfly effect would have on humanity, and when He issues decrees it is because he knows what those actions will do long term. But self righteous 'moral man' thinks he knows better. So what better reminder than to allow 'moral man' to forever deal with the short shortsightedness of the self righteous as a perminate reminder of why one should indeed listen to God.

Secondly, if the necessary conditions for fossilization were absent, what conditions would cause organisms to convert into oil?  You make it sound like they drop dead and turn into oil.  Or are you saying the flood turned Eden animals into oil and other animals into fossils?  WTF are you talking about?

Plant matter is the source material for crude oil here. The Animals in the garden did not die. The animals ate the plants. The plants did die. After several hundred bazillion years. of untouched plant matter breakdown and leaching miles into the earth it cooks into oil.

Thirdly, yes I knew right and wrong at 6.

Strawman. Not what I asked.

I ask if you knew of a specific sin and all of the ramifications of that sin when you were 6, that was incompareson to knowing the difference between you mom telling don't eat that you will die.
There is a layer of understanding when one willfully sins that is absent when one 'does wrong.'

But Adam had no belly button (Did he have nipples?  If so, why?)

Bible does not say/I don't care.

and was made out of dust.

clay.. carbon would be a modern equivalent term.

 He had no knowledge of good and evil until he ate of the tree, then was punished for the evil act of disobedience?

Again no. He was told if he ate of the tree He would die. He ate and then he died. He ceased being the type of being he was and thus could no longer live the way he lived.

[Drich]

Kinda like the amount of time from day three of creation to the 100's of bazillions of years it took for everything outside of the garden to 'catch up?'

Right.  Adam and Eve were living in an oil filled swamp.  Nice ad hoc response.

If you can't be bothered to read everything that lead up to what you commented on then why should I have to personally hold your hand through everything again?

[Angrboda]

Right.  Adam and Eve were living in an oil filled swamp.  Nice ad hoc response.

If you can't be bothered to read everything that lead up to what you commented on then why should I have to personally hold your hand through everything again?

Hahahahaha. You're really self-centered if you think every detail of your argumentum ad nauseum is worthy of attention. Why don't you humor me, what did I miss?