THIS WAS YOUR LIFE - a mormon story (MANY IMAGES)

[Venom]

Before I respond any more, what are the best translations of the bible anyway?

I have a new american standard that I use atm, but also an NIV lying around somewhere. Heard the NIV is poor so I don't use it, is the NAS good enough?

[PFG 9000]

Before I respond any more, what are the best translations of the bible anyway?

I have a new american standard that I use atm, but also an NIV lying around somewhere. Heard the NIV is poor so I don't use it, is the NAS good enough?

I've always been told that the NIV is extremely faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek, though it's been mostly pastors and teachers in my various churches over the years who have told me that. (While they know how to read the original languages and thus they can compare different translations, they're still a bit biased due to their church allegiance.)

Anyway, the King James Version is probably the most widely used, but the language is somewhat difficult to understand if you're not used to it, so perhaps the New King James Version is a good place to start...?

[Dylan1CC]

Whatever translation you choose, I would steer clear of King James if possible. It was translated in a "crunch time" of 9 months and it shows. "Ye old english" language isn't exactly amicable for the reader either. I like my New World Translation because the language is "formal" but it is modern english and does not have thee, thou, ect. ect. and is extremely faithful to the oldest available Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and also has meticulous cross references.

[Dylan1CC]

Any athesists reading this? I'm one, and the power of belive in you guys and knowledge you have is staggering, demands respect. I've just accepted the fact some day I'm going to die and add to the carbon and nitrogen cycles thus adding to soil nutrient content enabling more organic vegetation growth to be consumed and energy distributed in food chains. effectively my death promotes life, not quite reincarnation but its scientifically feasible provided I'm not cremated

When you think about it you never really die providing you have children in essence they are 99.9% indentical to you only some phenotypes are not represented. Only the memories that define you are lost. which one could argue represents a person. anyway I wonder what other atheists have to comment on this thread.

A very interesting reply indeed. Thank you for the kind comment!

[silvery wings]

Any athesists reading this? I'm one, and the power of belive in you guys and knowledge you have is staggering, demands respect. I've just accepted the fact some day I'm going to die and add to the carbon and nitrogen cycles thus adding to soil nutrient content enabling more organic vegetation growth to be consumed and energy distributed in food chains. effectively my death promotes life, not quite reincarnation but its scientifically feasible provided I'm not cremated

When you think about it you never really die providing you have children in essence they are 99.9% indentical to you only some phenotypes are not represented. Only the memories that define you are lost. which one could argue represents a person. anyway I wonder what other atheists have to comment on this thread.

It doesn't matter if you are cremated or not (as long as you dont keep ashes in an urn) If the matter and energy that makes up your corporeal form promotes life, it will continue to regardless of it's state. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. I also find this thread really interesting to read, it seems particularly enlightened.

I am not athiest, I prefer to call myself agnostic. My belief is that if god does exist, and he is a perfect being, it would be impossible for an imperfect human to transpose his word, and make his existence known.

I believe in the existence of "holy" numbers and I think there is a greater order to the "universe" that is unfamiliar to man; to me, that is what god represents.

I do not believe man is capable of understanding the workings of such a system, but if there is a path to understanding such things, religion is probably it. The bibles of all major religions have one thing in common, they are all books of venerable wisdom. They are designed to foster virtue and proliferate the species, but they are still written by men.

What if religions are an elaborate construct of ancient civilisation? Atlantis, Lemuria, Ys? Maybe they knew of their impending demise and created guides to help us avoid their fate. I'm not just talking about holy books, the I-Ching, Pyramids of various civilizations, symbols in the sky, geoglyphs (cropcircles?), they are all probably trying to tell us something.

What if these plans have already failed, twisted by man's vices?

If anyone is interested, this is an interesting read, if a bit off the wall.
http://ascension2000.com/Shift-of-the-Ages/

Also: Edgar Cayce is the man.

[JBC]

This is actually my profile at VF...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

'If everything is infinite then anything is possible' - that's what i'm about. People's actions tend to stem from their beliefs so i figure what better way to say something about myself than to tell you what i think?

There's a fifty/fifty chance that everything is real or not so the fact that i'm perceiving anything at all right now is proof of existence. Did you know that scientists have discovered evidence that neutrinos exist beyond the edge of our universe in just as thick a form there as they do here coursing through every atom of our being? Let's say there was a 'big bang' or something of the sorts. Who would be to say that there could be only one? I believe that there is no boundary line to existence. The only thing that probably cannot exist in infinity is nothing and since we are dealing with an infinite amount of time and space then that should mean everything exists and there is no such thing as a true void.

Our perception is limited to a straight line with a beginning, middle, and end - i don't think this is really an accurate portrayal of eternity but it is simple for now. For instance - we all know that numbers stretch on for infinity and never end right? Somewhere out there is a number so big that we have never spoken of it, never written it down on paper, we've never even thought about it. Does that mean that the number does not exist? I don't think so. Think about that - that means when numbering possibilities you would never run out and with the idea of infinity all things exist at some point, right?. Think of the worst thing you could ever imagine (Dokken) - it's real. Think of the best thing - it's real, too.

Have you ever had a dream where you didn't know you where dreaming and suddenly something extraordinary happened? In the dream you may have reacted to this event no differently then you would something mundane in your waking life. You experienced that dream did you not? Does it not stand to reason that the dream was just as real? At least maybe it was somewhere...

So we have a scale of negative to zero to positive. Think of this as evil to holy or bad to good or whatever... So if the negatives are bad realities and the positives are good realities then what is zero? I believe it is nature. It would be the scale itself - balancing everything perfectly in the center. I mean, really... sit a rock down in front of you, try hating it and see if it breaks...

Unfortunately from our world it appears that the scale has tipped to the left but i'd be a fool to speak of infinity and then tell you that the whole universe is fucked up. I've never been out there untethered so i really can't say what to expect. Maybe one day my conscious will return to eternity as my body will to the earth and i hope that maybe i will find out then.

I do know one thing, though - there is more to existence than just waking up everyday and going to work at chevron so that joe cockpuffer can fill up his planet destroying convenience machine. Fuck that - somewhere out there there is something more. There is something that matters. There is something cool...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Go ahead and tear it apart if you want to but well, thats just what i think.

[Specineff]

I think I need a blue pill.

[BulletMagnet]

Before I respond any more, what are the best translations of the bible anyway?

Truth be told, I honestly don't know a whole lot about the quality/accuracy of most Bible translations...most of the time I've had and used the New World Translation (NWT for short) published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (basically the "official" part of the Jehovah's Witnesses). If you're interested, however, the aforementioned organization has actually published quite a bit of information on what sources and such were used for the NWT: on the reference in front of me here, while some of the sources are listed as "groups" ("Aramaic Targums," "Syriac Versions") and others as individual items ("Samaritan Pentateuch," Latin Vulgate"), but for the OT there are 13 listed "direct" sources, plus several other "indirect" ones, and for the NT there are 15 "direct" ones, not including indirects.

Perhaps the most notable thing that the NWT does is leave in the divine name, translated into English as "Jehovah" (you might also have heard of it as "Yahweh," or "the Tetragrammaton"); most other translations replace it with "God," "Lord," or some other title, though the specific four Hebrew characters (usually rendered "YHWH" or "JHVH") appear several thousand times throughout the scriptures. Interestingly, though, many translations, for some reason or other, tend to leave it in at one or two key places...I believe that Psalms 83:18 is a common one of those places. In any event, for the record, while most of the time Jehovah's Witnesses use the NWT, at times we'll refer to other translations in order to better make a point (as in, "the NWT renders word A this way, but translation X gives it additional meaning by translating it that way").

silvery wings, some interesting thoughts. If you're interested, I'd like to respond briefly to a few of them:

My belief is that if god does exist, and he is a perfect being, it would be impossible for an imperfect human to transpose his word, and make his existence known.

That's another one I've heard from time to time...my question for you is, if God created the universe (and us) a certain way, insofar as doing or not doing certain things (beyond the "vital essentials," eating, drinking, etc.) is good/bad for us as a whole, but was either unable or unwilling to give us instruction on how to best live our lives to that end, can it really be said that God cares for the things he makes, especially creatures such as ourselves, with the ability to search for deeper things in our lives and ponder such mysteries as this? If not, then is God really "perfect" after all?

They are designed to foster virtue and proliferate the species, but they are still written by men.

I can't speak for the Koran or other such books, but the Bible, for its part, actually claims outright to have been directly "written," in effect, by God himself, using faithful human writers as "links," if you will, between his own spiritual plane and the physical one upon which we exist. 2 Timothy 3:16 comes most immediately to mind, when it says "All Scripture is inspired of God." Obviously not everyone believes that, but the claim, at least, is there; I don't know if any such equivalent exists in other books, like the ones you mentioned.

circuitface, some funky musings in there too, heh heh. I hafta say I like your closing line:

somewhere out there there is something more. There is something that matters. There is something cool...

That's a sig if there ever was one. I picture Bill and Ted floating around in space someplace, looking into some huge gleaming light or something, with the theme from "2001" playing in the background: "Dude, it's, like, the meaning of life or something!" "Deeper meaning! How cool is that?"

[Venom]

Read these verses slowly, since Paul has a very...."scholarly way of writing." haha

1 Corinthians 15: 35-50

heh, that's the same passage that Carrier used in the debate I just watched. I understand what he's saying, that the natural passes away and the spiritual is indestructible. What I have trouble with is later in the chapter, in verses 53-54, where the perishable "put on immortality", "put on imperishable". For this to be so they need something to put it on. Unless you take it as change actually being exchange (as Carrier argued, along with the new body going over a inner soul), so that the whole is recreated in new immortal composition, which seems to be what BulletMagnet is saying where you are recreated from God's memory. I'm really enjoying hearing different takes on these things.

As for the snake, there can be no doubt in my mind that Satan used it much like a skilled ventriloquist uses a puppet (one way I have heard it put). And if it was just a snake, why would God speak to "it" at Genesis 3:14,15 and pronounce the prophecy that the future seed of the woman (Jesus): "He will brush you in the head." Revelation 12:9 later identifies Satan: "So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth." (abbreviated) Revelation 20:2 "And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."

I think I already covered my opinion of the bruise prophesy in my previous posts. Once again, thanks for the verses. The Ezekiel passage is kind of confusing, as it is to the prince of tyre is he simply using an analogy to their merchantile ways and sin, to that of if a cherub was in the garden and sinned? The end (v. 19) looks to be directly against tyre, not towards any spiritual agent. You'll have to clarify that for me.

The main thing with the fig tree, methinks, was simply that Jesus was able to make it do what it did (a superhuman feat, obviously) simply by speaking it; the same was the case with most of his other miracles in general. I don't think there was any specific significance behind the fact that he withered up the tree in this instance, at least I can't think of any offhand.

Yeah, I wasn't being too serious about, but the figs, oh those evil figs

that if God is talking about a way to reverse what's been done via the original sin (if you have any other ideas as to what he's talking about, let me know), he must be talking about someone rather extraordinary

Well, I kind of take it that the OT god was magnified human, with supernatural powers (think superman and a wizard combined). He lived in the sky, hears crys and decends, isn't all knowing (though is powerful enough to make what he wants come to pass), inside of time, emotional, etc. So, at that point in the story of original sin, I don't think he had a plan yet. The other side would be that the early books were written retroactively to explain how things got to where they were. Or were a compliation of works, that had likely been passed down by word of mouth over the generations then were written and eventually compiled (I'm thinking along the lines of the JEPD-R documentary hypothesis). I'm getting beyond myself again, so take all that with a grain of salt.

On the "companion" for Adam thing, it's actually a suitable/corresponding helper and he finds none among the animals while naming them. Gen 2:18-20. My translation does say the serpent is more crafty in 3:1 and doesn't offer other possible meanings. If it was simply a regular snake and they were crafty, it was acting on its nature, nothing more. If we take it that a change actually occurs when they eat the fruit 3:7 and their "eyes were opened", and that they did not die but live ~900 years more the snake can hardly be accused of lying either. For they did not "die in that day" as 2:17 asserts.

heh, this is getting rather complicated isn't it...

You bring up free will, and it often is in these discussions. Could you clarify what you mean by free will? Some take it as simply volition, while other view it very differently.

Thanks for the encouragement, I finished Leviticus just after exams finished and it was so drawn out in parts that I haven't read much lately. Need to get back to it as I have a goal of finishing the whole thing cover to cover.

To your questions about the circle of life and fear of death. I think it is us that have the problem, most animal live lives based on eatting, sleeping, reproducing and general survival. We realize we will die, but many can't seem to accept it. I think it may be an issue of conditioning in people, we are taught that we are special, that we aren't like other creatures and so on and thus we don't want the obvious fate of all biological entities. Also, we are taught that there must be an ultimate meaning or purpose to life, and I think that we make our own. Another point is that living creatures appear at least to me to have a built in desire to live. Even if we lived a thousand years each, people would still want more. The finality really gets you, even if you became some type of disembodied mind I'd be happy (well with audio/visual inputs to observe). Other than contributing to the resources of new life I see death as a terrible thing for the individual. There are other ways to see it as well, like someone in continuous agony being relieved of that (but then no longer existing to experience anything) or benefits to others through one's death (jump on a grenade to save your unit, end of oppression, etc.). I do see it in a negative light for the one dying in nearly all cases... I need to start making kids to preserve my genes

Diabollokus: I would describe myself as an atheist as well, though it does depend what you mean by that. I don't have any belief in any supreme being, however I'm not a strong/positive atheist. You could say I'm an agnostic atheist with a strong interest in religion and wish that there was more.

Edit: realized I may have misrepresented Carriers a bit and corrected it.

[BulletMagnet]

Unless you take it as change actually being exchange (as Carrier argued, along with the new body going over a inner soul), so that the whole is recreated in new immortal composition, which seems to be what BulletMagnet is saying where you are recreated from God's memory.

That's more or less the idea, if I follow you correctly. While there's no piece of people which can't die, God has the ability to transfer personality and consciousness between the spiritual and physical realms (as he did when he sent Jesus to Earth, and again when the latter ascended back up to heaven). It's also worth noting that after Jesus was killed, when he was brought back to life after 3 days, those who had known him previously did not recognize him at first (compare John 20:11-17), not to mention that he now had the ability to appear and disappear at will (read the remainder of the chapter for one or two instances of that); he had been given a different form than he had inhabited previously, but he was still the same person.

Well, I kind of take it that the OT god was magnified human, with supernatural powers (think superman and a wizard combined). He lived in the sky, hears crys and decends, isn't all knowing (though is powerful enough to make what he wants come to pass), inside of time, emotional, etc. So, at that point in the story of original sin, I don't think he had a plan yet.

That's a common perception, that the "OT God" and "NT God" are two different people; while obviously the times and situations were different (and thus God had different people and things to react to than he did thousands of years previously), not to mention the coming of the "new covenant" as mentioned in an earlier post, but I'll refer you again to the scripture in Malachi (mentioned someplace earlier) in which God says "I have not changed," and Paul's words from one of my recent posts, in which he says that he and his fellow followers of Jesus believed in the words of the prophets, presumably of the OT, thus spoken to by the "OT God." I might also mention 2 Peter 3:8 - "...one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day": God is eternal and timeless. The "OT" and "NT" Gods are one and the same, and consistent throughout; heck, Jesus himself referred to the prophecies and teachings of the "OT" God, and practiced Jewish beliefs as they were originally written while he was alive on Earth. In fact, he believed that some of those prophecies (namely regarding the Messiah) were about him: check Luke 4:16-21.

The other side would be that the early books were written retroactively to explain how things got to where they were. Or were a compliation of works, that had likely been passed down by word of mouth over the generations then were written and eventually compiled

Well, obviously a lot of the earlier books weren't written "as they happened"; in fact, the first book, Genesis, was written by Moses, quite some time after Eden, Abraham, etc., so it'd seem that a lot of that early history was passed down orally until it was recorded by Moses. But as I mentioned in my previous post, the Bible claims that all of those who wrote down what was eventually compiled into its pages was "inspired of God" to write what he did, how he did; after all, if God wanted this information to get to people throughout generations via one means or another, he certainly had the power to make it happen.

On the "companion" for Adam thing, it's actually a suitable/corresponding helper and he finds none among the animals while naming them. Gen 2:18-20.

My translation reads this way for those verses, I'm not sure if there are any major differences in yours:

And Jehovah God went on to say: "It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him." Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he was bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name. So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him.

I'd guess that you're referring to the part about Adam "calling the names" of all the animals, but no partner for him existing; the wording is a bit ambiguous, but I always figured that the "calling the names" was referring to his actual deciding what to call all the creatures (basically, the selection repeats itself), instead of him somehow looking amongst them for a suitable partner for himself. After all, if God had already determined to make him a suitable "complement," as the verse puts it, why would God have even let him bother, when he knew that there was no creature suitable as of yet? Not to mention that nowhere does it say that any creature in Eden other than the serpent ever spoke to a human, at least no verse that I can call to mind.

If it was simply a regular snake and they were crafty, it was acting on its nature, nothing more.

If this were the case, then why would God create a critter like that in the first place, a creature "destined," more or less, to make trouble (and BIG trouble, at that) right from the outset? How could he criticize and pronounce against it as he does in Genesis 3:14-15, if he wired in the thing's innate desire to trick others in the first place? I'll again refer you to the scriptures at James 1:13-15, and my comments on "free will" below. Also, out of curiosity, how does the translation you're using render Matthew 10:16?

If we take it that a change actually occurs when they eat the fruit 3:7 and their "eyes were opened", and that they did not die but live ~900 years more the snake can hardly be accused of lying either. For they did not "die in that day" as 2:17 asserts.

Well, no, they didn't drop dead the moment they took their first bites (though they did begin to die, slowly, from that moment on), but if they had, 1) The entire human race would have been kaput, since they never would have had a chance to reproduce, and 2) as a result, Satan's accusations about God's creation, first recorded outright in Job, would have gone unanswered. God, being just, wanted 1) for Adam and Eve's offspring to have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to follow their parents' unfaithful course or not, and 2) give them a chance to disprove Satan's accusation that they (we, when you get right down to it) are, essentially, nothing but self-interested parasites right down to our core. Methinks it's also worth noting that, in my translation at least, God's original warning to Adam says only "in the day you eat from it you will positively die"; it does not specify instant death, as there is room in the wording for the interpretation of "as soon as you eat from it, you are doomed to die." And of course before God kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden, he lets him know that death is indeed coming: "for dust you are and to dust you will return."

In addition, check the serpent's lie in full:

You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad. -Genesis 3:4b-5

First off, while the wording allows for the idea that Eve was fooled into thinking that she wouldn't die instantly, it seems to me that the serpent was telling her that she wouldn't die at all; after all, if she'd been told outright "you won't die now, you'll just waste away slowly," or somehow had come to believe that, do you think she'd have been as eager to take the offer? And while verse 7 does say that their "eyes were opened" after eating the fruit, in some manner or another, they certainly did not become "like God" as the serpent had promised, especially since they felt compelled to try to hide from him a couple of verses later, not to mention to pass the blame for what had happened right on down the line (verses 12 and 13). They knew that what they'd done was wrong, but tried to avoid responsibility for it; whatever perception they might have gained, they didn't have God's sense of justice to go along with it, nor enough foresight to see in advance what was going to happen afterwards.

You bring up free will, and it often is in these discussions. Could you clarify what you mean by free will? Some take it as simply volition, while other view it very differently.

I don't place any particularly complex definition on top of the term, really...I just view it as the ability for people to make their own decisions, and thus be held accountable for them, and whatever comes about as a result of them. Independent thought, you might call it, or something along those lines. Obviously the question of "how much does one's genetics/surroundings/etc. affect one's decisions" comes up, and while those are obviously factors, I'm of the mindset that they can be overcome if someone truly wants to understand something free of such inhibitions. As mentioned before, if the above isn't true, then the whole concept of justice and accountability is a farce, since one's setting and genetics would pretty much serve as the equivalents of "fate," or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure how well all of that fits under the dictionary definition of "volition."

Thanks for the encouragement, I finished Leviticus just after exams finished and it was so drawn out in parts that I haven't read much lately.

Heh, the Bible as a whole certainly ain't light reading, and Leviticus is particularly difficult, since it's largely, more or less, a legal document, and such things aren't exactly at the top of best-seller lists too often. There is a lot of info worth taking note of in there though, so keep on truckin'!

I think it may be an issue of conditioning in people, we are taught that we are special, that we aren't like other creatures and so on and thus we don't want the obvious fate of all biological entities.

To at least some extent, though, I'd argue that we are somewhat special, even completely disregarding the scriptural idea of being "made in God's image" and such. For instance, just look at the discussion we're having right now: no other creature on Earth can even comprehend this sort of thing, for as you say, their lives are built around "simpler" or more "basic" things. No other creature desires or seeks "deeper meaning" or a "reason why"; they simply live, follow whatever instinct they're born with, reproduce, and die. Beyond that, look at the sorts of institutions (for lack of a better word) that mankind has developed and is able to appreciate: art, music, literature, science, mathematics, history, drama, the list goes on. No other creature has the capacity for anything like it.

While I'm obviously not of the mindset that man is "the only creation that matters" or anything like that, nor do I deny the Thoreau-esque principle that "simplifying" to some extent can be beneficial (the Bible itself says to "keep your eye simple"), but the stuff I mentioned above, and more, really does seem to set us apart from the rest of life as we know it, at least to some sizable extent.

Even if we lived a thousand years each, people would still want more.

That's actually one of the things which, to me at least, makes a strong argument in favor of the viewpoint that we were originally intended to live forever: however much we know about the life cycle and whatnot, or however much we've done or experienced in the time we've got, we still, for some reason, desire more on top of that. Considering the absolutely incredible amount of things to see, know, and otherwise experience right here on this one tiny planet, not to mention whatever lies beyond it (which we can only glimpse at this point), I am of the viewpoint that such a desire for more than the limited lifespan we have now is not an irrational one.

There are other ways to see it as well, like someone in continuous agony being relieved of that (but then no longer existing to experience anything)...

For the record, while (as I mentioned earlier) Jehovah's Witnesses are determined to preserve life to the fullest extent possible insofar as it doesn't conflict with our other beliefs, provision's been made for situations like this as well: for example, once a year or so we're required to update the medical document we carry which states that we don't take blood. Included in that document there is an item we're required to review and make a decision on, in which we state whether or not we would want to be kept alive via artificial means should we fall into a coma or something along those lines, with no hope of coming out of it; as with some of the unspecified stuff I mentioned earlier on, that decision is left to the individual.

...or benefits to others through one's death (jump on a grenade to save your unit, end of oppression, etc.).

There's actually a scripture which references that:

This is my commandment to you, that you love one another just as I have loved you. No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul on behalf of his friends. -John 15:12-13

However, this wouldn't cover wars between nations or the like, considering Jesus's command that his followers be "no part of the world" as discussed some time earlier...but that's a whole different issue.

[BulletMagnet]

EDIT: Double post, sorry.

[JBC]

Just to let everybody know the reason that i poke fun at mormons in my post is mainly because mormons left the comic at the gas station pumps right after asking me (for the second time) if i worshipped the devil and badgering me to be mormon with them. Very dickishly i might add.

I don't really care what belief the comic itself is supposed to be intended to follow nor do i actually care that mormons believe what they do. My religion is based on the possiblity of everything and thus it really does not disprove anything at all. I don't actually look down upon mormons or any christians for that matter for anything other than being followers.

It is my belief that we all where given the ability to figure things out for ourselves as individuals and that that ability is wasted on organized religion.

Honestly i'm sick of the hate between people caused by it. The only people in the world that deserve to be looked down upon are those that purposley hurt others with the intention of personal gain. To each his own.

But damn if it isn't funny to make fun of polygamists.

[BulletMagnet]

I don't actually look down upon mormons or any christians for that matter for anything other than being followers. It is my belief that we all where given the ability to figure things out for ourselves as individuals and that that ability is wasted on organized religion.

Just on the side, I thought you might find this passage interesting:

Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. -1 John 4:1

In short, the Bible itself says "if you hear something, check it out and make sure it's accurate, to whatever extent you can." I sometimes wonder how many people, religious or not, are aware of that.

Honestly i'm sick of the hate between people caused by it.

I've mentioned a couple of scriptures already which address that point (perhaps most notably Romans 12:17-18 - "Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men"). Of course, those who professed to being Christians are responsible for some of history's worst atrocities (the Crusades, the Inquisition, alliances with Naziism, etc.), but as noted above, at least part of the reason these things happened is because people didn't (or couldn't) check the source (the Bible) to see whether what they were being told corresponded to its teachings.

Someone (I think it was Kofi Annan, but I'm not positive) once said something to the effect of "There is no need to rewrite the Bible. What needs to be changed is not the text, but the behavior of its disciples." Even Gandhi (again IIRC) stated that if people could only apply the basic things Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount, the world's problems would begin to disappear. Unfortunately, of course, by and large that hasn't happened, but that's no excuse for those who do search into these things to just give up.

[Venom]

That's a common perception, that the "OT God" and "NT God" are two different people; while obviously the times and situations were different

I said OT god, because that's all I've covered so far, and it is in disagreement with how most of the christians I know see him (who focus on the NT). Got a lot to read, so we'll see.

Matt 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpends and innocent as doves"

Well, obviously a lot of the earlier books weren't written "as they happened"; in fact, the first book, Genesis, was written by Moses, quite some time after Eden, Abraham, etc., so it'd seem that a lot of that early history was passed down orally until it was recorded by Moses.

I'm not so sure that is agreed upon, though I hate using wiki it's the easiest online resource here is more about the documentry hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_Hypothesis and Genesis hilighted for sources With the amount of knowledge and study you've obviously put in, you probably know all about it. It's a cool way to look at it, and seems widely accepted.

After all, if God had already determined to make him a suitable "complement," as the verse puts it, why would God have even let him bother, when he knew that there was no creature suitable as of yet?

Well god says he will make a suitable helper then proceeds to make all the animals and there isn't one for Adam among them. I think through the making of all the animals he was hoping to find one, but ended up needing to do some surgery on Adam instead. The point seems to be just to explain attraction between the sexes and why their parts complimentry.

If this were the case, then why would God create a critter like that in the first place, a creature "destined," more or less, to make trouble

Do not question god, he works in mysterious ways! Sorry, I've always wanted to say that Got in a few times in conversations... He could still condemn the snake, if you want to use a free will defense for it. It seems that they did become like god "knowing good and evil" as the snake said. Even god seemed to be afraid now, Gen 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

They had not eaten from the tree of life either at this point, so there were already dying anyway it seems... This snake thing is really getting large so I'm just going to leave it for now . I don't have the cross references to continue arguing it.

I'm not sure of free will myself. I agree with the compatibalists to a degree. That it is deterministic, but this only means that it is you making the choices, there isn't an uninfluenced will. On another side it seems very reactionary. So, I chose to reply to your post, but I may have had no other choice, um

There is a lot of info worth taking note of in there though, so keep on truckin'!

Thanks

May have more to say about death down the road, but I stand by my assessment for the moment.

[BulletMagnet]

Matt 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpends and innocent as doves"

Hmm, so "shrewd" is the word your version uses...I wish I knew whether the word used to describe the serpent in Genesis and the word used there in Matthew were compatible or not. I wonder if there's a source which would mention it...

here is more about the documentry hypothesis...

I only got a chance to look at it quickly, but some of the rationale used to support the theory seems flawed:

The creation story in Genesis first describes a somewhat "evolutionary" process, with first the planet created, then the lower forms of life, then animals, and finally man and woman being created together. It then begins the story again, but this time man is created first, then animals to assuage man's loneliness, and when this failed, Adam's wife Eve was created.

Again, I suppose the wording could go either way, but if a bunch of different writers was going for consistency (to the extent that the reader was supposed to believe that one man wrote it), why would they put such an obvious discrepancy in the first 2 chapters of the whole book? I tend to regard chapter 2 as a re-telling of chapter 1's account, but including some extra details regarding man specifically; the animals were already around, and as 2:19 says, God was "bringing them" to the man so he could name them (but "no helper" was brought to Adam at that point, since Eve hadn't been created yet). Of course, as possible extra evidence against the "God originally tried pairing Adam up with another creature" viewpoint, there's the fact that bestiality is condemned by God in his laws to the Israelites...

The flood story in Genesis appears to claim that two of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that seven of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days.

The fact that seven of certain kinds of animals were requested by God is true, but I'm not sure where the contradiction in there is: he commands that every "clean" beast be brought on board by sevens, and "unclean" ones by twos (presumably the "clean/unclean" distinction was a forerunner of the distinctions later given to the Israelites). As for the 40 days/1 year thing, I honestly have no idea what the entry is referring to...I can only find the flood being spoken of as lasting 40 days, though it also says that "the waters continued overwhelming the earth" (as in, the rain stopped but the water hadn't dried up yet) for 150 days. Do you have any idea where it gets the "year" from?

Numbers 25 describes the rebellion at Peor, and refers to daughters of Moabite; the next sentence says that one woman was a Midianite.

Actually, if you check a few chapters earlier, the nations of Moab and Midian were allied with each other in an effort to bring down the Israelites, because both nations felt threatened by them:

And Moab proceeded to say to the older men of Midian: "Now this congregation will lick up all our surroundings like the bull licking up the green growth of the field." -Numbers 22:4

A verse or two after the ones I quoted, they get together to hire Balaam, whom they hoped would curse Israel: after Balaam finds himself unable to utter the curse, he gives his hirers another idea, as is noted by John in Revelation, speaking for Jesus:

Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there holding fast to the teachings of Balaam, who went teaching Balak [king of Moab] to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. -Revelation 2:14

So it makes sense that both Moabite and Midianite women were involved in the incident.

A second, almost completely different set of Ten Commandments appears in Exod 34.

Checking the beginning of that very chapter disproves that:

Then Jehovah said to Moses: "Carve out for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I must write upon the tablets the words that appeared on the first tablets, which you shattered. -Numbers 34:1

The laws given by God later on in the chapter are completely separate from the original ten commandments.

In some locations God is friendly and capable of errors and regret and walks the earth talking to humans, but in others God is unmerciful and distant (although consistently just).

That sounds quite similar to the "OT/NT God" thing mentioned earlier on...while it is true that God is spoken of as feeling "regret" at certain points over things he's done, it's never in the sense that he feels as if he's done something wrong, but rather that those he's struck have gotten what they deserved, but once they repent God feels sorry for them and shows them mercy (one notable example is God's reaction after Moses' plea in the aftermath of the golden calf, in Exodus 32). Also to be taken into account, of course, is exactly who and what God is reacting to in a given situation; not to mention, of course, that God, unlike humans, has the ability to read the innermost thoughts and feelings of people, and thus knows more about those he interacts with than anyone else can. As such, the exact reasons for his actions at times are not always clear, but they are consistent.

Moses' wife is often identified as a Midianite (and hence Caucasian), but in the tale of Snow-white Miriam, she is identified as an Ethiopian (and hence black).

I don't know a great deal about this one, but I do know that the term used in my translation for Zipporah in the "Miriam" account is "Cushite," which refers to a specific lineage from one of Adam's sons, Cush; while many of them settled in Ethiopia, others remained on the Arabian peninsula. In any event, it's impossible to precisely trace Zipporah's lineage, so I can't be 100 percent sure on it.

Those reasonings came most immediately to mind...some others I'm not sure of offhand. As for Moses not writing every bit of the pentateuch, I suppose it's a possibility (seeing as the end of Deuteronomy speaks of Moses dying and Joshua taking over), unless God somehow revealed to him details from the future and had him write those before he died (though there's no evidence supporting that which I know of). In any event, noting the scripture I quoted a post or two before which says that "all scripture is inspired of God," if you believe that, then whoever wrote the stuff down got what he wrote from the same source.

Well god says he will make a suitable helper then proceeds to make all the animals and there isn't one for Adam among them.

I already at least partially addressed this in one of the points up above, I think...

He could still condemn the snake, if you want to use a free will defense for it.

Well, that brings up a whole other issue: can it be said that animals, who function almost purely via inborn instinct, have "free will" in the same sense as humans? Romans 6:23 says that "the wages sin pays is death"; that would explain why humans die, since all humans sin, but do animals also somehow "sin" and pay for it with their mortality? If that's the case, then why did their creator not make provision for them, as he did with the Messiah for humans? Not to mention that no animal (that I can recall) is ever spoken of as "sinning" except the serpent...why don't just snakes die?

It seems that they did become like god "knowing good and evil" as the snake said. Even god seemed to be afraid now, Gen 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

They had not eaten from the tree of life either at this point, so there were already dying anyway it seems...

God obviously wasn't happy with what had happened, but I don't think that "afraid" is the word to describe him...compare the Tower of Babel account in chapter 11 of Genesis, where God says of mankind with one language "Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them" (verse 6). Obviously they couldn't have literally "built a tower up to heaven" as they were planning, but in any event God was able to put a stop to it by messing their languages up. And even if Adam and Eve had gotten ahold of the Tree of Life, note that while Jesus began in heaven as immortal, God was able to give even him (a higher life form than a human) a mortal body when he descended to earth; there's no indication that God had any reason to feel somehow threatened by Adam and Eve. Betrayed, angry, yes, but the two certainly hadn't "become like God" in much of a sense after eating the fruit.

[Venom]

I have to say, that until recently I never realized how important the garden story and fall was for christianity. Even with the whole story of redemption, sacrifice and all the things I learned in sunday school I never really saw how important it was. Odd as it's pretty obvious to me now

Those reasonings came most immediately to mind...some others I'm not sure of offhand. As for Moses not writing every bit of the pentateuch, I suppose it's a possibility (seeing as the end of Deuteronomy speaks of Moses dying and Joshua taking over), unless God somehow revealed to him details from the future and had him write those before he died (though there's no evidence supporting that which I know of). In any event, noting the scripture I quoted a post or two before which says that "all scripture is inspired of God," if you believe that, then whoever wrote the stuff down got what he wrote from the same source.

Now you see why I hate citing wiki, don't you... anybody with partial knowledge of a concept can do a write up and many people take it as the true position. Don't take this as me defending the hypothesis or the things you pointed out. Just something to consider, anyway, I'm sure there are books that go into more detail with stronger evidence to support the claim if you wish to research it. So far I'm not getting any special feeling from what I reading or, um, I'm not really sure what that would indicate "divine inspiration". I can see how if one believes that god entranced people or "guided their writing" one could say it's the same source. I obviously don't believe that, but can attempt to see things from that viewpoint.

The suitable helper, I was just pointing out that the "make a suitable helper" is directly followed by making of the animals. This speaks to me of god thinking that one of the animals would happen to be a suitable helper. If this was already understood, or I was unclear, sorry I had to repeat this.

I was just throwing a possibility out there with the snake free will as it spoke and seemed to be represented as a rational being in the story. We could make up stories at length, about it hearing the command, seeing things, etc and forming opinions, losing these abilities after the fall, but what would be the use? It seems a bit ridiculous to get into a character study of the snake...

I disagree with you about both gods response and your interpretation of the Tower based on my readings so far. May change as I read more and look into things.

I have a report to write up, preparations for a volunteer mission and a 5 month co-op position in South America to attend to, so I will be around here much less. Really appreciate the time and effort you and others have put into explaining and debating things on here