Please explain if possible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I

iConflicted

Guest
#41
If you're genuinely seeking answers, I've given some and I can point to others.
I am genuinely seeking answers. I have no agenda. I just want to find answers that make sense.
I was given this mind for a reason. It may seem dense to you, but I grew up in a house of lies. Sure, a wonderful Christian foundation, but at what cost? They tore it all away .. Total 360°.
So I sometimes can't accept answers given. You may believe them but I really feel I've been given a brain that knows bullshit when I see it. :D
I don't mean to be rude TinTin. I don't want a word battle with anyone. I just feel like I'm getting fed more of the same.
Please pray that I'll find some comfort. I know needing answers is probably showing a lack of faith but I'm being driven.
 
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
#42
Those passages have been twisted to try and make two creation stories, or as you have said giving Adam two wives...

However the proper way to look at this is that Genesis 1 is the quick short version of the creation story, and then in Genesis 2 it goes into detail of the creating of Adam and Eve. It is the same story given in a summary and then again in detail.
There already are five biblical creation stories. The two found in Genesis were written several hundred years apart and from two completely different perspectives. As you have probably guessed, Genesis 2ff is the more primitive.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#43
I am genuinely seeking answers. I have no agenda. I just want to find answers that make sense.
I was given this mind for a reason. It may seem dense to you, but I grew up in a house of lies. Sure, a wonderful Christian foundation, but at what cost? They tore it all away .. Total 360°.
So I sometimes can't accept answers given. You may believe them but I really feel I've been given a brain that knows bullshit when I see it. :D
I don't mean to be rude TinTin. I don't want a word battle with anyone. I just feel like I'm getting fed more of the same.
Please pray that I'll find some comfort. I know needing answers is probably showing a lack of faith but I'm being driven.
Well, I'm not telling you lies. I'm not telling you to accept what I say blindly. You can Google credible websites to check, if you wish. But don't just dismiss what I said outright either. Still, there's no use in always searching and never finding either. Post-modernism is a dead end street. Yes, I'll be praying you find God's peace.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#44
There already are five biblical creation stories. The two found in Genesis were written several hundred years apart and from two completely different perspectives. As you have probably guessed, Genesis 2ff is the more primitive.
Rubbish, JackH. One creation account - two different perspectives. One shows the scope of creation, the other focuses in on the creation of mankind. And we don't know when the accounts were written, but I seriously doubt they were recorded several hundred years apart. And the second perspective, found in Chapter 2 is the more recent, not the more primitive.
 
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
#45
Rubbish, JackH. One creation account - two different perspectives. One shows the scope of creation, the other focuses in on the creation of mankind. And we don't know when the accounts were written, but I seriously doubt they were recorded several hundred years apart. And the second perspective, found in Chapter 2 is the more recent, not the more primitive.
Thank you for your opinion. I still disagree. However I will be polite and avoid pejorative words like "rubbish".
 
I

iConflicted

Guest
#46
Well, I'm not telling you lies. I'm not telling you to accept what I say blindly. You can Google credible websites to check, if you wish. But don't just dismiss what I said outright either. Still, there's no use in always searching and never finding either. Post-modernism is a dead end street. Yes, I'll be praying you find God's peace.
Thank you :)
I hope I'm not in a tailspin. Always searching never finding.
That makes me think of that twilight zone episode. He just wanted a quiet moment to read! Then the town is destroyed while he's in a vault. He comes out, last one alive. Tons of books, plenty of time.. Until he breaks his glasses. Total heartbreak.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
#47
A great many Christians are under the impression that our scriptures were written in the same order in which they now appear in the canon. These documents have been exhaustively studied by a great many biblical scholars particularly in the last two centuries. The large majority of these scholars, both conservative and liberal, now agree with what has come to be called "the documentary hypothesis" when dealing with the Torah.

In the late 1800s, a group of scholars in Germany led by Professors K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen began to study rigorously the details of the first five books of the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These books, called the Torah or the Books of Moses, constitute the most sacred part of the Hebrew Scriptures and were traditionally required by the Jews to be read in their entirety on the Sabbaths of a single year in the synagogues of the Jewish world. These scholars began to apply to these texts the insights of literary criticism. The results were salutary and more than anything else opened the doors to a new academic interest in the Bible itself.

Analyzing these texts carefully, these scholars discovered that there were many observable differences that could be noted which led them to the conclusion that the Torah consisted of several strands of what had once been independent material. One strand referred to God by the name Yahweh, or at least by an unpronounceable set of consonants that were written as YHWH, and it called the holy mountain of the Jews Mt. Sinai. Another strand of material called God by the name of Elohim and it called the holy mountain Mt. Horeb. A third strand of material reflected life in the Kingdom of Judah in the seventh century. Still another strand appeared to be dated during the time of the Exile and perhaps even later. When they began to separate these strands from one another, other insights became available.

These four strands are termed, in the order mentioned above, as J or Jahwist, E or Elohist, D or Deuteronomist and P or Priestly. These four strands were cut and pasted into a new document by R or Redactor (Editor) at some point late in the Exile or shortly after. All of this leads to modern confusion because the subject matter of the different strands is frequently similar but is handled quite differently.

For example, there are contradictions found in the three versions of the Ten Commandments contained in the Bible (Exodus 34:1-28, Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:1-21). The three versions are not the same. Exodus 34, the oldest version at about 950 BC, is from the pen of the "J" or Jahwist writer and is not one of which many have ever heard. The final commandment in this earliest version reads "You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." Why, we are led to wonder, was this original set of Ten Commandments rejected or replaced? The second version Exodus 20, from about 850 BC, was from the pen of the "E" or Elohist writer, but was greatly expanded about 560 BC by a group of people called the "P" or priestly writers. Did these writers, who added so much to the entire body of the Jewish Scriptures, do so because they judged the original version to be so woefully inadequate that it required major additions and editing? Does one alter or tamper with what one believes to be "The Word of God?" The third version, Deuteronomy 5 in about 625 BC, was from the pen of the "D" or Deuteronomic writers composed somewhere between the original writing of Exodus 20 and the expansion done on that same text some 400 or so years later. For example, the version in Deuteronomy did not offer as the reason the Sabbath must be observed the fact that God rested on the Sabbath, for that version of that seven day creation story had not yet been written. So this author states that the Sabbath is to be observed because the people of Israel must remember that they were once slaves in Egypt and even slaves must have a day of rest. Which of these versions of the Ten Commandments, we might ask, can qualify as "The Word of God?"
 
Much later in the Old Testament Micah seems to summarize the commandments into just three:

Micah 6:8 --- And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Looking ahead into the New Testament we find:

Mark 10:19 --- Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
.
Here Jesus only lists six of the ten. When we look at the other two synoptic gospels we quickly note that "Defraud not" is not on Matthew's and Luke's list of Jesus' commandments. We also note Jesus' famous summary of the commandments down to just two:

Matthew 22: 35-40 --- One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
 
I

iConflicted

Guest
#48
A great many Christians are under the impression that our scriptures were written in the same order in which they now appear in the canon. These documents have been exhaustively studied by a great many biblical scholars particularly in the last two centuries. The large majority of these scholars, both conservative and liberal, now agree with what has come to be called "the documentary hypothesis" when dealing with the Torah.

In the late 1800s, a group of scholars in Germany led by Professors K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen began to study rigorously the details of the first five books of the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These books, called the Torah or the Books of Moses, constitute the most sacred part of the Hebrew Scriptures and were traditionally required by the Jews to be read in their entirety on the Sabbaths of a single year in the synagogues of the Jewish world. These scholars began to apply to these texts the insights of literary criticism. The results were salutary and more than anything else opened the doors to a new academic interest in the Bible itself.

Analyzing these texts carefully, these scholars discovered that there were many observable differences that could be noted which led them to the conclusion that the Torah consisted of several strands of what had once been independent material. One strand referred to God by the name Yahweh, or at least by an unpronounceable set of consonants that were written as YHWH, and it called the holy mountain of the Jews Mt. Sinai. Another strand of material called God by the name of Elohim and it called the holy mountain Mt. Horeb. A third strand of material reflected life in the Kingdom of Judah in the seventh century. Still another strand appeared to be dated during the time of the Exile and perhaps even later. When they began to separate these strands from one another, other insights became available.

These four strands are termed, in the order mentioned above, as J or Jahwist, E or Elohist, D or Deuteronomist and P or Priestly. These four strands were cut and pasted into a new document by R or Redactor (Editor) at some point late in the Exile or shortly after. All of this leads to modern confusion because the subject matter of the different strands is frequently similar but is handled quite differently.

For example, there are contradictions found in the three versions of the Ten Commandments contained in the Bible (Exodus 34:1-28, Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:1-21). The three versions are not the same. Exodus 34, the oldest version at about 950 BC, is from the pen of the "J" or Jahwist writer and is not one of which many have ever heard. The final commandment in this earliest version reads "You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." Why, we are led to wonder, was this original set of Ten Commandments rejected or replaced? The second version Exodus 20, from about 850 BC, was from the pen of the "E" or Elohist writer, but was greatly expanded about 560 BC by a group of people called the "P" or priestly writers. Did these writers, who added so much to the entire body of the Jewish Scriptures, do so because they judged the original version to be so woefully inadequate that it required major additions and editing? Does one alter or tamper with what one believes to be "The Word of God?" The third version, Deuteronomy 5 in about 625 BC, was from the pen of the "D" or Deuteronomic writers composed somewhere between the original writing of Exodus 20 and the expansion done on that same text some 400 or so years later. For example, the version in Deuteronomy did not offer as the reason the Sabbath must be observed the fact that God rested on the Sabbath, for that version of that seven day creation story had not yet been written. So this author states that the Sabbath is to be observed because the people of Israel must remember that they were once slaves in Egypt and even slaves must have a day of rest. Which of these versions of the Ten Commandments, we might ask, can qualify as "The Word of God?"
 
Much later in the Old Testament Micah seems to summarize the commandments into just three:

Micah 6:8 --- And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Looking ahead into the New Testament we find:

Mark 10:19 --- Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
.
Here Jesus only lists six of the ten. When we look at the other two synoptic gospels we quickly note that "Defraud not" is not on Matthew's and Luke's list of Jesus' commandments. We also note Jesus' famous summary of the commandments down to just two:

Matthew 22: 35-40 --- One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Now!! We're getting somewhere.
Jack thank you. Where did you find this?
 
T

tanach

Guest
#49
There are many ancient books that never made it in the Bible. Enoch is one of them, though the church of Ethiopia includes it in theirs. The books we have included in the Bible were accepted by the Jewish People living in Israel. The extra books accepted by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Enoch is
included in the Bible used by the Ethiopian Church. Although it has some very interesting material in it the book as we have it is believed to actually be parts of three separate books put together. Because it is quoted in the Bible doesnt make it
inspired on the same level as the Bible. Paul quotes Greek Philosophers that doesnt mean we should add them to the Bible.
Modern Christian books Quote the bible. Does that mean they should all be included as well?
 
I

iConflicted

Guest
#50
There are many ancient books that never made it in the Bible. Enoch is one of them, though the church of Ethiopia includes it in theirs. The books we have included in the Bible were accepted by the Jewish People living in Israel. The extra books accepted by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Enoch is
included in the Bible used by the Ethiopian Church. Although it has some very interesting material in it the book as we have it is believed to actually be parts of three separate books put together. Because it is quoted in the Bible doesnt make it
inspired on the same level as the Bible. Paul quotes Greek Philosophers that doesnt mean we should add them to the Bible.
Modern Christian books Quote the bible. Does that mean they should all be included as well?
Why do people wish to discount Enoch so hard when it is obviously important to this generation's plight?

Roswell happened in '47.
Is it coincidence that a boy found Enoch the following year in a cave? Or was it God handing us a manual? I take the latter view myself.

"History is written by the victors." I've never blindly accepted anything written in a history textbook or a scientific journal/periodocal. I was usually debating my teachers so the parents home schooled me. Thank you Jesus! So I'm not so solidly entrenched in the scientific dogmas we're forced to accept because we as laymen can't disprove them.

This will go in circles. I've stated here and elsewhere why I believe Enoch was left out of canon. Its rather pointless to continue the discussion. You either accept what's given or you study. I choose study. Proving the bible with the bible is problematic. Just maybe I see something few others see.

I'll pray that God opens eyes as he has mine.


My original question about Lilith was simply an introduction into the possibilities that we don't know all the there is to know. Even Daniel says so. And it's canon. (But canon or not matters little to me).
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#51
There already are five biblical creation stories. The two found in Genesis were written several hundred years apart and from two completely different perspectives. As you have probably guessed, Genesis 2ff is the more primitive.

Once again that does not make them speaking of two separate events though !!!
Taking Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and looking at them they were written by two different people of the same event, one in a summary like style and one in a more detailed approach. In other words it would be the same if you took all 4 gospel books and put them together as one book.

You would have 4 authors of the same events, which we do they are just divided in their own books in the NT !!!
 
T

tanach

Guest
#52
Konflicted So who are we to believe if we follow your ourtlook on things. Most of us have the humility to admit we do not know everything. We are not born with a Wilkopedia in the hand so thats why we have education. I do not believe everything I hear or read but I do study. The book of Enoch was known about long before a copy was discovered with the dead sea scrolls. The only difference that I know of is that copy was written in Aramaic.
 
Last edited:
I

iConflicted

Guest
#53
Konflicted So who are we to believe if we follow your ourtlook on things. Most of us have the humility to admit we do not know everything. We are not born with a Wilkopedia in the hand so thats why we have education. I do not believe everything I hear or read but I do study. The book of Enoch was known about long before a copy was discovered with the dead sea scrolls. The only difference that I know of is that copy was written in Aramaic.
Yes It was known.. But by a few. The people (outside of Middle East) werent aware of Enoch because it was supressed. By whom? (Hint: they say sure! It aliens exist we should embrace them as Gods creation....)

Not to imply no one else does, but I don't have filters on that let me see only thru Christian eyes. I'm aware. I don't have a Christian paradigm because I believe its fabricated anyway. I'm NOT discounting Scripture or saying I don't believe in God. I AM saying that I'm not buried in ancient dogmas.

Please explain why canon Scripture is viewed as the only unreliable source of Gods word? How do we know Constantine was inspired and led by God with regard to what was included in our present day Bibles..


I just am having the hardest time trying to understand why Christians rely so heavily on that Constantine's motives...
Absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that his embracing Christianity wasn't a political ploy.
Just study his history. Makes me wonder. And that's enough to make me question.
Question man's influence on what we read as God's word, NOT question God. I am saved by grace.
 
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
#54
Now!! We're getting somewhere.
Jack thank you. Where did you find this?
That was my own compilation of information from a wide variety of sources that TinTin would dismiss as liberal scholarship. If you are interested I can provide you with a list of such scholars.
 
I

iConflicted

Guest
#55
That was my own compilation of information from a wide variety of sources that TinTin would dismiss as liberal scholarship. If you are interested I can provide you with a list of such scholars.
I was glad to see that I'm not completely wrong in my thinking. Id love a list of these scholars that I could study. Even ones that contradict my views.

I'm a long time Christian but one without a paradigm as I stated elsewhere I think. I'm not dead set on anything but God's love for me, and I love that about me. I like being able to question things without feeling I'm assaulting my faith. I feel for those who suffer otherwise.

!! Thanks again !!

(I like tintin. I just think tintin is too serious! Serious like a grumpy old man :) Man I hope he's not old. Then I'd look like I dont respect my elders!)

He makes valid points but I look outside the box while he seems to operate from within. Nothing at all wrong with that. I believe we're both after the same thing, but from different angles.
 
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
#56
I was glad to see that I'm not completely wrong in my thinking. Id love a list of these scholars that I could study. Even ones that contradict my views.

I'm a long time Christian but one without a paradigm as I stated elsewhere I think. I'm not dead set on anything but God's love for me, and I love that about me. I like being able to question things without feeling I'm assaulting my faith. I feel for those who suffer otherwise.

!! Thanks again !!

(I like tintin. I just think tintin is too serious! Serious like a grumpy old man :) Man I hope he's not old. Then I'd look like I dont respect my elders!)

He makes valid points but I look outside the box while he seems to operate from within. Nothing at all wrong with that. I believe we're both after the same thing, but from different angles.
OK, here I go. This is a list just off the top of my head and is not exhaustive.
John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Karen Armstrong
Uta Ranke-Heineman
Hyam Maccoby
John Shelby Spong
Paul Alan Laughlin
Walter Wink
etc etc etc
 
I

iConflicted

Guest
#57
OK, here I go. This is a list just off the top of my head and is not exhaustive.
John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Karen Armstrong
Uta Ranke-Heineman
Hyam Maccoby
John Shelby Spong
Paul Alan Laughlin
Walter Wink
etc etc etc
Alright thanks. :D
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#58
iConflicted, JackRT is not one who speaks truth. I know no-one and have never heard of anyone who believes the books of the Bible were written in the order they were canonised in. No-one. Also, the Documentary Hypothesis is a load of nonsense with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The books in the Bible were written by the people the very Bible says wrote them. Moses wrote Exodus to Deuteronomy (except his death scene) and he edited together a number of different pieces of writing to form Genesis. There are a few unknown authors in the Bible, but far less than the liberal Bible scholars and theologians would have you believe. They don't even believe in God's revelation to His people, so I'd stay away from them. Be discerning, be critical. Think. God bless.
 
I

iConflicted

Guest
#59
iConflicted, JackRT is not one who speaks truth. I know no-one and have never heard of anyone who believes the books of the Bible were written in the order they were canonised in. No-one. Also, the Documentary Hypothesis is a load of nonsense with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The books in the Bible were written by the people the very Bible says wrote them. Moses wrote Exodus to Deuteronomy (except his death scene) and he edited together a number of different pieces of writing to form Genesis. There are a few unknown authors in the Bible, but far less than the liberal Bible scholars and theologians would have you believe. They don't even believe in God's revelation to His people, so I'd stay away from them. Be discerning, be critical. Think. God bless.
I appreciate it TinTin :) I'll be careful. I'm not one to accept anything and everything I'm given, I do try to tune out the nonsense.
And glancing over a few blogs, I did see some nonsense.
One is already off the list as he discounts entirely something I'm trying to understand.
 
T

tanach

Guest
#60
I have no idea what a 'Christian Filter ' is. As for Enoch it has been known in the west from at least the early 20th Century.
A man surnamed Charles translated amd commentated on that book and many other Books outside the Bible and his translations can still be bought today. Constantine did not select the Books to be included in the Bible. The council consisted a large number of Bishops over which Constantine presided. It was they that approved those of the New Testament. The Greek translation of the Old Testament had been accepted as Scripture from the very beginning of the Church by Gentile Christians. Some of the NT books now included were not accepted at that time. A notable one is the Book of Revelation. Other rejected books were the 1st and 2nd book of Peter, The Gospel of Peter and The Shepherd of Hermas. I concede that Constanties motives were partly political in that he saw the Christian faith as a means of consolidating his power. It is debatable whether he was a Christian himself at that time, having been a devotee
of Sol Invictus. although his Mother was a Christian. He is belived to have been coverted on his death bed.