Bible talked in circles at start

[Ketzer]

This is an observation on my part where the bible basically talks in circles. Below are 2 quotes from the bible.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” 

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image. He created him in the image of God. He created them male and female. 

When I pointed this out to my relatives (who are a mixture of Baptists and Catholics) they were caught off guard and struggled for an explanation.

I asked them, "So, god was a hermaphrodite that identified with the male side because it clearly states "he" created them male and female. They can explain this by saying god created man in his image buuuuut, then they'll contradict themselves if they try to explain the "our image part' because, according them there is only one god.

I know the rest of the bible too and use to asked all the time by my relatives. "If you're an Atheist, why do you know so much about the bible?" So, I throw it back by telling them that's the wrong question. "If you're a christian, why is it you don't?"

[Belacqua]

This is an observation on my part where the bible basically talks in circles. Below are 2 quotes from the bible.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” 

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image. He created him in the image of God. He created them male and female. 

When I pointed this out to my relatives (who are a mixture of Baptists and Catholics) they were caught off guard and struggled for an explanation.

I asked them, "So, god was a hermaphrodite that identified with the male side because it clearly states "he" created them male and female. They can explain this by saying god created man in his image buuuuut, then they'll contradict themselves if they try to explain the "our image part' because, according them there is only one god.

I know the rest of the bible too and use to asked all the time by my relatives. "If you're an Atheist, why do you know so much about the bible?" So, I throw it back by telling them that's the wrong question. "If you're a christian, why is it you don't?"

Have you checked the original Hebrew? Sometimes these issues turn out to be translation problems that are clearer in the original.

For example, the "our" may be the English "royal we," a singular meaning with a plural pronoun. As when Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," meaning "I am not amused."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

[Gwaithmir]

I am an atheist largely because of reading the Bible. 

[no one]

The babble, like any other holy buuk, is a crock of shit. They are all ridiculous.

[Ketzer]

This is an observation on my part where the bible basically talks in circles. Below are 2 quotes from the bible.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” 

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image. He created him in the image of God. He created them male and female. 

When I pointed this out to my relatives (who are a mixture of Baptists and Catholics) they were caught off guard and struggled for an explanation.

I asked them, "So, god was a hermaphrodite that identified with the male side because it clearly states "he" created them male and female. They can explain this by saying god created man in his image buuuuut, then they'll contradict themselves if they try to explain the "our image part' because, according them there is only one god.

I know the rest of the bible too and use to asked all the time by my relatives. "If you're an Atheist, why do you know so much about the bible?" So, I throw it back by telling them that's the wrong question. "If you're a christian, why is it you don't?"

Have you checked the original Hebrew? Sometimes these issues turn out to be translation problems that are clearer in the original.

For example, the "our" may be the English "royal we," a singular meaning with a plural pronoun. As when Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," meaning "I am not amused."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

First, wikipedia has all the qualifications to be a reliable source of information as a conspiracy theorist. I'd get more reliable material from twitter. (joking)
Second, you just made my point for me in another area. People are basing their lives on a book written by a group of people who didn't speak the original language. Plus, it was written hundreds of years after the last supposed apostle died. Be this as it may, there is a popular mem out right now that has alot of truth to it. "My favorite part of the Bible is when Jesus talks to god alone and someone who wasn't there is writing about it". lmao, I thought, "Even I didn't catch one in my studies.

[brewer]

This is an observation on my part where the bible basically talks in circles. Below are 2 quotes from the bible.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” 

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image. He created him in the image of God. He created them male and female. 

When I pointed this out to my relatives (who are a mixture of Baptists and Catholics) they were caught off guard and struggled for an explanation.

I asked them, "So, god was a hermaphrodite that identified with the male side because it clearly states "he" created them male and female. They can explain this by saying god created man in his image buuuuut, then they'll contradict themselves if they try to explain the "our image part' because, according them there is only one god.

I know the rest of the bible too and use to asked all the time by my relatives. "If you're an Atheist, why do you know so much about the bible?" So, I throw it back by telling them that's the wrong question. "If you're a christian, why is it you don't?"

Welcome new contributer/entity. I'm enjoying your posts.

How about creating an intro thread?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Have you checked the original Hebrew? Sometimes these issues turn out to be translation problems that are clearer in the original.

For example, the "our" may be the English "royal we," a singular meaning with a plural pronoun. As when Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," meaning "I am not amused."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

First, wikipedia has all the qualifications to be a reliable source of information as a conspiracy theorist. I'd get more reliable material from twitter. (joking)
Second, you just made my point for me in another area. People are basing their lives on a book written by a group of people who didn't speak the original language. Plus, it was written hundreds of years after the last supposed apostle died. Be this as it may, there is a popular mem out right now that has alot of truth to it. "My favorite part of the Bible is when Jesus talks to god alone and someone who wasn't there is writing about it". lmao, I thought, "Even I didn't catch one in my studies.

Actually, the Bible WAS written by people who spoke the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek). Also, the writings that were assembled into the Bible were not written hundreds of years after the last apostle died.

You’re giving atheists a bad name.

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

Welcome to AF, Ketzer. Nice starting thread.

I don't think Bel's "royal we" idea holds up. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1, ’elohîm, is plural. Here is a link to a 7th day Adventist site explaining the noun ’eloah, but I'm not drawing from this site for my information. I've heard a Jewish analysis of the text point out the same thing.
https://www.adventistworld.org/is-it-tru...is-plural/

The standard explanation for the many gods thing from Christians is the Trinity. This really doesn't gel with the rest of their theology, although I'm sure they can't help but be giddy at their beloved Trinity being spoken of all the way back in Gen 1:1.

A better explanation for all of OP's concerns is that Genesis and other texts were compiled from a bunch of different manuscripts... some of this compilation of texts happened as late as 200 BC. Lot's of scholarly work suggests that early Judaism might have had a pantheon of different gods where, historically, one became the favorite over time. Also, the two different tellings of creation of humans can be explained by multiple manuscripts.

Plenty of good theories. Too many to detail here. All of them dispute inerrancy.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

This is an observation on my part where the bible basically talks in circles. Below are 2 quotes from the bible.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” 

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image. He created him in the image of God. He created them male and female. 

When I pointed this out to my relatives (who are a mixture of Baptists and Catholics) they were caught off guard and struggled for an explanation.

I asked them, "So, god was a hermaphrodite that identified with the male side because it clearly states "he" created them male and female. They can explain this by saying god created man in his image buuuuut, then they'll contradict themselves if they try to explain the "our image part' because, according them there is only one god.

I know the rest of the bible too and use to asked all the time by my relatives. "If you're an Atheist, why do you know so much about the bible?" So, I throw it back by telling them that's the wrong question. "If you're a christian, why is it you don't?"

Have you checked the original Hebrew? Sometimes these issues turn out to be translation problems that are clearer in the original.

For example, the "our" may be the English "royal we," a singular meaning with a plural pronoun. As when Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," meaning "I am not amused."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

I'm very rusty, it's been a long time since I read the Torah. I seem to remember that god YHWH refers to 'himself' as 'Elohim' .

I found this which I think is a reasonable explanation. 

"---Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections.

Elohim | Hebrew god | Britannica


At my Catholic school I was taught that the passage that god made man in his own image refers to god as being pure spirit, not a physical person. Have always had a problem with that

())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))90)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I thought about your explanation of the human foetus being a human being. I think your argument is sophistry. Or simply too far above my head to understand. Occam's razor suggests you may also be right. That I can't understand an argument infers nothing other than that.

Again at my Catholic school. We were taught that a human foetus is a person from conception because the soul enters it at that moment.  I don't believe in the soul, so have no problem rejecting that answer. Apologies for not stating that at the beginning

As  I understand it he 24 week rule is a generalisation used by doctors to determine up to what time they will perform an abortion.  Up to that time a foetus will not  usually  survive outside of the mother's body regardless of medical intervention.

The claim about potential is moot as far as I'm aware

My understanding of the issue  has satisfied me for over 40 years.  I am of course willing to accept a science based rebuttal. Not convinced the answer can be reached by sophisticated argument alone.

[Ketzer]

First, wikipedia has all the qualifications to be a reliable source of information as a conspiracy theorist. I'd get more reliable material from twitter. (joking)
Second, you just made my point for me in another area. People are basing their lives on a book written by a group of people who didn't speak the original language. Plus, it was written hundreds of years after the last supposed apostle died. Be this as it may, there is a popular mem out right now that has alot of truth to it. "My favorite part of the Bible is when Jesus talks to god alone and someone who wasn't there is writing about it". lmao, I thought, "Even I didn't catch one in my studies.

Actually, the Bible WAS written by people who spoke the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek). Also, the writings that were assembled into the Bible were not written hundreds of years after the last apostle died.

You’re giving atheists a bad name.

Boru

You got that backwards. The king James version was written by a committee of 9 leading clergy of the time. The Christian Standard Bible was compiled in a similiar fashion. They themselves commissioned the gathering of stories then voted on what were to be put into the bible. I highly doubt anyone here speaks Hebrew. This is afterall, according to what i see, an English speaking forum. I don't give Atheists a bad name. People who pretend to be Atheists and speak without being truly informed do that already. Example, people who try to get churches removed from neighborhoods. Religion or any belief system in a deity doesn't offend me nor effects me. I rank all modern deity beliefs into the same categories as viking lore, greek mythology and so forth. In case why you are wondering I haven't flew back at you with a rant, rave or a just all around exchange of insults, the answer is easy. I'm an adult and make little time for such things. I view the time responding to you as a waste in fact as well. Have a good day.

---

Welcome to AF, Ketzer. Nice starting thread.

I don't think Bel's "royal we" idea holds up. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1, ’elohîm, is plural. Here is a link to a 7th day Adventist site explaining the noun ’eloah, but I'm not drawing from this site for my information. I've heard a Jewish analysis of the text point out the same thing.
https://www.adventistworld.org/is-it-tru...is-plural/

The standard explanation for the many gods thing from Christians is the Trinity. This really doesn't gel with the rest of their theology, although I'm sure they can't help but be giddy at their beloved Trinity being spoken of all the way back in Gen 1:1.

A better explanation for all of OP's concerns is that Genesis and other texts were compiled from a bunch of different manuscripts... some of this compilation of texts happened as late as 200 BC. Lot's of scholarly work suggests that early Judaism might have had a pantheon of different gods where, historically, one became the favorite over time. Also, the two different tellings of creation of humans can be explained by multiple manuscripts.

Plenty of good theories. Too many to detail here. All of them dispute inerrancy.

Nice. A kindred spirit. You hit my point exactly. If I may extrapolate on your input. The Gilgamesh story of creation predates the Christian Genesis book and unsurprisingly enough, Genesis mirrors it quite a bit. Of course it has always been the way of Christiananity to incorporate into their system what they couldn't squash. Christmas is an excellent example of this in my opinion.