₦airaland Forum

Vic2Ree:
Hmmm. In most cases, this proposition is a response to the theist claim that god(s) exist. At least, speaking for myself, my active disbelief in god is as a result of lack of evidence for god(s) as described by multiple religions. As a result of this lack of evidence, I choose to withhold belief. So I don't see how I could be making any claims myself but please enlighten me.

Edited

Technically (at least from a philosopher's point of view) to withhold or suspend belief for whatever reason does not make one an atheist (at least not under the standard definition).
The problem statement is, Does God exist? Theism give a positive answer of yes.
The "a" in a-theism should be considered as a negation, so if theism is construed as the proposition that God does exist, then atheism is an answer to the question by stating that No, God(s) do not exist.
And if theism is to be broadened to a set of religious beliefs then atheism is more broadly a rejection of all forms of religious beliefs, regardless of their position about the divine ( this was what the extract reed was trying to point out).
The answer "lack of belief" is just a claim about the state of mind of the person, not a claim about existence/inexistence of God. It is not an answer to the question itself.

With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

Vic2Ree:
Very interesting. Do you believe in a god, or you know there is a god. Also please provide a description of this god. Thanks

Personally, believe and know is not as strictly delineated as we like to make it. Within human experience, their are very few things we can know with absolute certainty.
For example, there is no way of me knowing with absolute certainty that my mind is not the only one in the entire universe and everyone I meet is not a figment of my imagination or a very cleverly orchestrated illusion.
Using the understanding of how my mind works and the realities around me, the best explanation is that my mind is not the only one in the universe and that the other people I meet are truly minds just like mine even though there's no way of knowing with irrefutable certainty. Their are people who subscribe to the skeptical end of the spectrum called solipsist.
So because within our universe and human experience, there's always going to be a degree of uncertainty and mystery, the question of knowing and believing is not as clear cut as we would like to have it.
We would never reach peak knowledge,so the better question IMO is, with what we do know, are there good reasons to believe what we do not know with absolute certainty? And are the reasons the best possible explanation from what we do know?

I am a Christian and I believe in the christian God.

LordReed:
Note the highlighted.

Okay, so let's read through the entire section where you got that extract from

Please what do you think that portion is trying to say again?

LordReed:
Ok? And the point is?

Pls see my responses to vic2ree

Vic2Ree:
If that's the case then yes, I suppose

Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

You can check
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy( one of the most cited encyclopedia of philosophy)

Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

ismbook.com/ism-list/

The oxford companion to philosophy

oxford dictionary of philosophy

Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy

Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (the only dictionary to include the none-standard definition in a positive light but it itself holds to the standard definition as it's preferred one)

and so on

And it's what noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.

Vic2Ree:
What's your point here, if you don't mind me asking?

Yeah. So if the the question of the existence/inexistence of the divine falls under the field of philosophy, would you agree that the adequate definition of atheism should come from from the field of philosophy itself?

LordReed:
Theology? May be Philosophy?

Yes sir, they would fall under Philosophy.



Even though theology does tackle the same set of problems when it comes to the question of the divine and might use the same set of principles, the theologian comes to the table with a set of presuppositions the philosopher need not come with.
Theology is much more constrained in it's field of study.The word "Theos" is already baked into the theologians field of study.

LordReed:
Wrong. Once again atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it is not the proposition that gods do not exist. Try again.

If I may ask.
What field of study do you reckon the metaphysical or questions concerning the existence/inexistence of the divine fall under?

LordReed:
What claims does atheism make?

The proposition that God(s) do not exist.

Tamaratonye1:
Actually he has made his position crystal clear on this thread, as well as others, numerous times and thereby the conclusion I reached is the only reasonable conclusion that can be parsed from his statements.

Quite the contrary ma'am, hupernikao has shown he does take the historical, literary context of the Bible serious in his interpretations. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't negate that fact.

Secondly ma'am, even if you've had a thousand conversations with someone online (which I doubt you've had in this case), it's still impossible to make conclusive statements about a person's mental state except they expressly state it by themselves(which I doubt that's the case in this scenario).

Tamaratonye1:
Tamaratonye1 to hupernikao:
You are scripture driven from the position of belief. It has never occurred to you to examine historical context, prose, accuracy, or translation. You accept it all at face value with no doubts whatsoever. That's why you're a Christian; you have been conditioned to accept it all as truth and never question anything.

And that's why you will never understand how other non Christians view your belief system. You are incapable of understanding it because you don't want to hear it in the first place.

In my opinion,These are rather bold and presumptuous assertions to make about someone you've only interacted with online. I kinda doubt you have enough information to come to such conclusions

¹I lift up my eyes to the hills.
From where does my help come?

²My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.
Psalm 121:1-2

budaatum:
James please stop being unnecessarily tiresome!

Which countries now occupy the land known as ancient Mesopotamia?

You could have just asked that from the get go, instead of playing fast and loose with your information and resources.

I can see knowunknown has posted a few links. You can read through them. They do provide adequate information about the location.

Sorry if my laughing made you feel some type of way. I really didn't come into the conversation to try and mock you or something.
I was just genuinely surprised at the way the conversation went and I should have done a better job at curtailing my surprise.

Anyway, I guess we've derailed the thread enough.
Sorry once again and do enjoy the rest of your day buda.

budaatum:
Are we seriously going to be here arguing where ancient Mesopotamia was, James?

You do know "ancient" covers a vast timespan of immense change, right?

Lool. You really are trying to use a children's website as source "https://www.twinkl.es/teaching-wiki/ancient-mesopotamian-writing"
We might as well be using "My book of bible stories". Loool

To top it off, you couldn't even be bothered to read what the actual topic of the post was. It was about Mesopotamian/cuneiform Writing, not even about Mesopotamia as a geographical location.

Mehn, this has been one very fascinating conversation..
For someone who places such a high premium on knowledge, you really seem to be adverse to it.

Again you do know it would take you less than 5min to figure out the geographical land area of what constitutes Mesopotamia right?
Why are you so bent on holding on to a believe that is so trivial?

budaatum:
Where was Genesis 1-11 set, James?

Largely in Mesopotamia.

Where did you get the idea that Mesopotamia, millennia later is now known as Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Iraq?

budaatum:
It seemed to be what you were inferring when you said I hadn't. Glad to know we both haven't. It means neither of us can claim an advantage in this regard.

You seem to have a habit of doing that quite alot actually. Problem arises when you make these inferences with text that can talk back or expanciate on what they mean, you inevitably believe your inferences are correct.

James. Even the original so called text is a translation and interpretation, is what you seem not to get or think I don't get.

Go dig deep into ancient texts and you'd see how the Jewish texts are translations and interpretations (my preferred word by the way is, understanding) of what came out of Egypt and surroundings where the Israelites got their understanding from.

Sigh,You really don't know what a translation and an interpretation means, do you?

Well, so long as you are thinking instead of claiming to know, I can live with that.

Huh?

budaatum:
This is you being devious and dishonest. Please do not make false allegations against me.

It is not wrong that Genesis is mostly set in the areas I mentioned, with large parts of mythological places like the Garden of Eden that never existed.

But if you know different say so please.

budaatum:
Ancient Mesopotamia, which millennia later is now known as Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

Like I said, you do know you could take 5mins to check, if what you wrote is true, right?
It's a pretty easily verifiable claim and you would in less than 5mins know where your mistakes are?
Why are you chosing to believe it dogmatically?
It's quite fascinating actually..

Oh and by the way, where in my statement did I make a false allegation against you?

budaatum:
Yes I could. And if you'd thought of that you probably wouldn't have bothered to ask the question!

So you know what you wrote was wrong, right?
But you just chose to blindly believe it....
Huh,very fascinating.

budaatum:
Ancient Mesopotamia, which millennia later is now known as Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

You know you could easily have taken 5mins to google what you just wrote up there, right?

budaatum:
You doubt? You should know I have not read the Bible in it's own language because I do not speak nor am I capable of reading the Bible in its own language. I can't even read the Bible in its original English as its far to difficult for me to comprehend, and I definitely haven't tried it in the Latin that preceded it nor the Greek Septuagint that preceded that since neither is a language I understand.

Thing is, if you were to be honest, you'd admit you haven't read the Bible in it's own language neither, but see as you are attempting to claim that you have, lol.

James, would you like to tell me what the own language of the Bible is please? Is that what you read?

Lool. Can you show where I made the claim that I read the bible in it's original language. That shouldn't be hard to point out.

It seems you always want to divert from the core topic or question and make assumptions on things that are not there.

So let me make the point again in a simplified manner;
You do know all translations are interpretations, right? And everytime you read the translated bible, you are reading the interpretation of others that is being presented to you right?

Like I said, I don't think you've really thought through the things you are saying?

budaatum:
James, I am amused at your assumed capability to read the ancient minds of the Bible authors when what you've presented is what you've been told to believe and not in any way the nature of your own reading of the bible or your own opinion, a thing you said I did in a rather accusatory tone and which I therefore doubt you can bring yourself to emulate.

LoL. You really don't know how interpretation of text works, do you?

I doubt you read the bible in it's own language(which is not a prerequisite for any christian), but you do know that everytime you read the translated bible, you are reading the interpretation of others that is being presented to you right? You do know all translations are interpretations, right?

You do know that even if you could read the text in it's original language, the authors didn't leave us a dictionary so you'd still have rely on lexicons and word study resources which are the works of others presented to you right?

And I could go on but it's really fascinating how you think everything you know is born out of your own personal opinion.
I don't think you've actually taken a step back to think through the things you are saying?

The descendants of the Israelites must have evolved their understanding from what you say the ancients understood, as we can see that the fruits of trees of knowledge are the daily bread of the Israelites and any successful nation of today. A use your own brain Eve sort of person would shake their head at your exposition and become a disbelieving atheist, is what I think, but thanks immensely for the effort. You've confirmed why I cannot be a 'believing Christian' as I can't accept this sort of wuruwuru to the answer to justify what you wish to believe, nor do I think the authors of the text made any errors as the text works perfectly as it is if understood.

I'll have you consider that "Israel's conception of God" came out of Egypt where they were enslaved for centuries until Moses opened their eyes. There is a reason why Jesus had different understandings of the text to that of the Israelites of his time.

I kinda figured you wouldn't engage in any of the ideas using the bible or it's context itself.
For someone who places alot of value on knowledge, you really don't know much about the subject matter.
That's really not a big deal though, there are many things everyone of us do not know much about. What's actually surprising is the blind believe you choose to hold regardless of whether what you believe can be substantiated or not.
It's fascinating how you always talk about how you do not "believe" but surprisingly you do hold alot of believes that can't really hold up to any form of exegesis.

Let me ask you,if I may, what part of the world do you think the bulk of Genesis 1-11 was set in?

budaatum:
Jamesid29, I forgot to ask. Did Adam and Eve surely die on the day that they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

I ask because that's what is taught.

Ha, the good ol kinda gotcha question

I think the first thing I'll like to say is, taught by whom?

Anyway to get to what I think you're asking. Did Adam & Eve die that day or did the author just kinda make a mistake and nobody thought to take that out throughout the history of the transmission of the text?

So kinda of a long explanation for a relatively short answer but I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.

For starters we will need to understand what death meant to an ancient person and what Eden would have meant to ancient Jew.

I'll start with the second question first.
Eden to ancient Jew is where Heaven and Earth meets. This was God's central base;His abode with humans;the place where humanity gets to be with the Divine. The interlocking of God's space and man's space
This is one of the reasons the author takes time to present Eden as this lush garden with precious stones, rivers and all that. You see this motif picked up by later biblical author like Isaiah, Ezekiel and so on who call Eden the garden of God. Eden was the God's Earthly temple where he dwelt with Man.(Gen 3:8, Gen 2)
This fits with the cultural river of the ANE and other cultures of the time. The Abode of the gods was this lush paradise of which people who lived most of their lives with not much could only dream about ; surely the gods lived in all luxury.
What was different about the Jewish understanding though was that unlike their neighbors who thought the gods live in this lush paradise but created humanity as slaves to take up the task the gods didn't want to do, Isreal's conception of God was that He created this lush paradise for man to inhabit with him and enjoy all it's goodness, including the tree of life.
The garden was The temple where man was to enjoy a personal relationship with God and to multiply and extend this garden to the whole earth; the nexus point. We see the Eden motif play a huge role in Revelation as the place where we are all going back to when we chose life.
The bible can thought of as the Epic of Eden(From Eden back to Eden)

Only one thing was excluded from man though; The responsibility to determine good and evil on their own terms.

Another thing to point out is; Man was not created immortal. There won't have been a need to have a tree of life in the garden. So man's eternal life was not a given, but was dependent on something.

So we need to jump forward to see how other biblical authors understood the concept of life and life everlasting....
It turns out Jesus and the New testament authors have a lot to say about life and about life everlasting.
Jesus spoke alot about life. How do you think he understood it and he's role in it?
It also turns out the the new testament authors also had a lot to say about death and the death which came to all men through the sin of Adam..
And apparently, It also turns out that Jesus and the NT authors did distinguish between one type of death from another. And we as Christians are told not to fear one type of death but we should avoid not being part of the other one at all cost.
What do you think they meant by all these?

And least I forget, the new testament also potrays Jesus as the New Adam. The one who got it right. The first Adam brought death onto all men while the second Adam brought life. What ideas do you think the NT was riffing off?

Let's jump a bit back to the old testament authors.
The Hebrew bible doesn't say alot about life everlasting except in a few places, but like their neighbors, the Isrealites also didn't think people just ceased to exist after bodily death. They had a concept of a holding ground ("Sheol". But all through the Hebrew bible, whenever the authors talked about Sheol, it was spoken about as a place you really don't want to be.
Why do you think that is?

So if we answer these questions using the cultural lens of the bible as much as possible, what do you think would have been telegraphed to the mind of an Ancient Isrealite when in Genesis 3 the schisms happened between God's space and man's space?
How do you think they would have understood the event of Man being removed from the Garden?

Also if you read closely, the text of Genesis does seem to imply that, even though they were out of the garden, they did still stay within it's vicinity for a while. We can imply this by looking at the story of Cain and Abel where God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door(Gen 4:7 and there's a lexical link with the "desire" as with Gen 3:16). The question is, the door of where. It can imply the door spoken here is the Garden's own( since this is the only place in the story so far that has a barrier of keeping things out). If this is correct (a big If), were they making the offering at the entrance of the garden? Where they hoping to get back in the garden? Afteral that's the story arc of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation; From the the garden, back to the garden.... Just a food for thought though.
The main question is, why is getting back to the garden so important that it's one of the main story arc of the Bible?



Just as an aside: You referenced Gen 5 and the genealogy written in it.
For starters it's worth pointing out that deep bible history(pre flood history and Babel stories i.e genesis 1- 11) share a lot of common motifs with the culture around them.
This is to be expected, as this history is meant to potray humanity in general and not just Isreal's history.
Even though it shares some common themes with it's neighbors, it also shares some very stark differences that would have stood out to an ancient person swimming in that same cultural river.

One of those common but contrasting themes is in Genesis 5.
Gen 5 share similarities with the Sumerian king list(pre flood and post flood kings some who ruled for long periods of time some into the thousand of years). There's some very striking similarities between the two list, i.e the long life span of the pre flood kings, the 8 number of preflood kings(this matches with the genealogy of gen 5 if you drop Adam and Noah. The kinglist does not include the the first man and the hero of the flood), the 7th king who share similarities with the the 7patriach of the biblical genealogy ( Enoch) and so on. Essentially things that may imply both list where talking about the same people.
But just as there are similarities, there are also some striking difference. But the one I would like to point out is the " All the days of so& so was x years and he died".
This is striking because the Sumerian list omits the death part. This would have stood out to an ancient person who was familiar with the both list.
The bible is first and foremost a theological book and everything the authors wrote has a theological angle to it.
So for us who are outside the cultural river of the biblical authors, we see the genealogy and the emphasis on the "he died" and we just quickly skip through it as boring. But for an ancient Isrealite who just read the first four chapters of Genesis and his familiar with other list where the pre flood patriarchs lived long life without the mention of death, what do you think the emphasis on " And he died" by the biblical author would have telegraphed?

So do you think the two deaths mentioned by Jesus and the NT authors were captured in the first couple of pages of Genesis or you think the author made a mistake?

Anyway,Kind of a long explanation to a short answer but that's just the nature of reading the bible in my opinion. It's always way more interesting than we tend to see at first glance.

Based on your previous replies, I really doubt you would take a step back to reason with the ideas I wrote but it's all good.
I'd already started putting a few things down so I might as well just post this. Would have loved to expanciate on a few points but hopefully this writeup would suffice as summary of my views on it.

Anyway, have a goodnight and don't mind my typos. Kinda been a long day

budaatum:
I guess you've missed my point all along. Pay attention.

My first post, which I reposted in response to you specifically stated, "I'll only be able to respond from what I read". Does that not show you that I, buda, am very very extremely hung on my own personal understanding of the text in question? You, however, miss that point then ask me about what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)"!

In Genesis 1, God, I read, created (hu)makind and told them to multiply and rule over the earth and the sea. In Genesis 2 Adam and Eve are created and told to work in a Garden. Is the Garden of Eden the earth and the sea that humankind in Genesis 1 is told to rule over? Can humans rule over the earth and the sea if they do not eat the fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

You then wish to argue if "rule and multiply" is an instruction, and if those who obey it would be blessed while those who don't would not be blessed! Would you prosper if you don't obey the instruction to rule and multiply or don't you just consider the food you ate today to be the blessing due the fact that you multiplied and ruled?

Yes, I prefer my understanding to that of "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)". As you'd gather from my first post in this thread if you understood it, I'd rather be knowledge and wisdom seeking Eve than ignorant naked enslaved Adam. But most of all I'd rather be rule and multiply humankind than Adam or Eve, and you sir are equally free to choose which you wish to be regardless of my "narrative", for it would be hypocritical and contradictory of me to say you must abandon your narrative and accept mine.

Do note that you do not need to tell me if Adam and Eve surely died on the day that they ate if you do not want to. I'm really interested to know though if you accept what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating)" or if you can accept what you can see with your own two eyes, for that is what our discussion here boils down to.

LoL, ok sir/ma'am.

budaatum:
The above, by the way, is why I have given your post short shrift. Rather than engage with what I've written, you've assumed I missed something, then you go on to tell me what I should believe. It's the same thing that was done to Adam in the Garden of Eden and why he stupidly daily went past the tree of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil without plucking to eat to test if it is true or not that he would surely die on the day he ate it or not.

Its also why I've asked if he died on the day he ate the fruit or not. It would show if you are brave enough to accept what you see with your own eyes or accept what "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period" tell you to believe despite what you can clearly read for yourself.

LoL, you seem to be so hung up on your own personal interpretation of what I wrote about " Many people have been studying the text", rather than admit it wasn't I meant and you assumed wrongly. I'm guessing it's alot easier to hang into your assumption because it fit a certain narrative you much prefer.

It seems to me, it's the same approach you take with interpreting the bible also.

Anyway it's all good. I was actually writing up my take on Adam and Eve and the death sentence before seeing all your multiple post hammering on an assumption that I've stated was wrong without even trying to engage with any off the real ideas I raised.
I'm kind of guessing it's not going to be worth going through with it but I might as well just right something even though I assume you would rather not engage with it.

Surprising though.

budaatum:
Foreign, is what you call it. You will need to find it in you to forgive me for insisting on using my own brain and mind. It's what Jesus did and why he was crucified. People tend to want others to accept what they are told instead of recognising others have a brain of their own. Its probably why some are called sheep.

If this is what you got from everything I wrote, I'm afraid you misunderstood most of what I said

budaatum:
And, first, I'd like to point out to you that we are exchanging understanding. I'm not one to be told what to think since I have a mind of my own and know how to use it.

We all miss things, so pointing out something someone might have missed is not trying to tell them what to think. Rather it's just showing them a piece of information they might not have taken into consideration while parsing the issue.

Now, if I tell you to "multiply, fill the earth and so on", I feel certain you'd see it as an instruction.

This statement already shows that you are already reading something foreign into the text. It really doesn't matter what I, as a 21st century person thinks the statement ought to mean, what matters is what the original Author of the text intended it to mean.

As I implied in my previous replies, whenever we try to impose our own lens onto the text, we inevitable read something foreign into it.
So except you can show using the text that the verb "barak - to bless" can have a lexical range that includes "instruction" and could be what the original author intended and how the first audience would have understood it, what you or I believe it should mean is really not that relevant.

Just to buttress the point a little, I think it's worth remembering that all literature is written against the backdrop of the culture in which it is written. This is very important, because to read any text with a different cultural context is to most likely read something into it that was not intended by the author. To illustrate this:Let's say I write something to you and say "Mehn, that flew by me". You automatically get what I mean cos we share the same cultural river. But someone living in the year 2500 CE can easily read our Nairaland chat of today and misunderstand that statement to mean we were talking about actual flying cars, because he/she is swimming in a different cultural river.
Another example would be, when during the blm protest, Trump said "When the looting start, the shooting starts". Everyone was up in arms screaming racism. I didn't get what was racist about the statement until I did a bit more digging because I swim in a different cultural river from the black Americans living in the state.

That's one of the reasons translating from one language to another is hard. Because you're not just translating words, you are also translating cultures.

Anyway that's a long winded way of saying, what you and I think a statement is saying doesn't really matter that much. What matters is what the author intended and how the original audience would have understood it.

Evidence also suggests that if you obey the instruction to "multiply, fill the earth and so on" you will be blessed and if you don't you won't be blessed.

Could you show where such a condition was set?

Unfortunately the be "blessed" is placed first so that connection is missed. America, China, Europe, for example, "multiply, fill the earth and so on" and are blessed, financially at least. Nigeria does not "multiply, fill the earth and so on" enough, so is not blessed. You might note this from all the wailing on Nairaland or check the average lifespan of the countries mentioned and compare it to Nigeria's.

Can you substantiate this using the text of the bible or the cultural context from the around the time period or cultural river?

Many would agree with you, but Adam was clearly naked and kept ignorant and was working for slave wages of food and board.

Why do you think being naked is a bad thing? Just being curious.

What would constitute a slave's wage of food for an ancient Jewish reader?

And if you could indulge my question, pls how do you think an Israelite would have understood the garden of Eden?

Neither he nor Eve were "multiply, fill the earth and so on" while they were tending the Garden of Eden.

Before knowing if they were indeed partakers of the blessing of " multiply,fill the earth and so on", we would first have to understand what it means. Because so far, it seems you have a different view of what this blessing entails.

'Bend the earthly resources to your use and need', which can only be done after acquiring knowledge about the earth. Those who do not eat fruits of knowledge can not "subdue the earth" nor can they "rule over it".

So how were they able to tend the garden and take care of the animals within it, if they had no knowledge had not yet acquired this knowledge you mentioned?

Different people at different times have understood the entire book differently, even amongst the Jews different understandings existed, but the first few chapters of Genesis in particular are of significant importance, most especially the story of the Garden of Eden, since it is the key to the entire Book.

Some have used the ideas in the text to enslave others. The Catholic Church, for instance, kept the Bible in a language the people could not read, which allowed the Church to (enslave, exploit), dictate to people. The slave owners in America followed it literally in keeping their slaves ignorant so they could easily be controlled. The makers of our own Nigerian almanjeris use the same principle to enslave almanjeris by insisting the Quran remain in a language its readers can not understand, and our education system follows suite though not intentionally. We are taught to work in the Garden of Eden instead of to "multiply, fill the earth and so on". It's why we are so unblessed (poor).

Jesus, on the other hand went about opening people's eyes and fed them fruits of knowledge, for only those who eat that fruit can possibly "multiply, fill the earth and so on", while those who don't eat the fruits of knowledge would be enslaved to those who do. He said, "don't you know you are gods", which is what you'd be if you realise you are created in God's image to "multiply, fill the earth and so on" instead of being put to work in the tiny Garden of Eden.

I specifically mentioned the Jews and Jesus for a reason. The context of the Bible is not determined by the Catholic church, Luther and the reformation, 21st century christians or 19th century slave owners.
The cultural context of the Bible is determined by the cultural river in which it was written in. And also since the entire bible points to Jesus, He's interpretation of what is written carries presidence over any of our ideas.

So if I may ask again, How do you think an ancient Jew of let's say Moses's time would have understood "to subdue the earth and to rule over it meant?
And how do you think Jesus in particular understood these texts?

In your previous you said "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating). And they have come out with an harmony across the text".

From the above I am assuming you are implying that one should therefore accept what they say instead of using your own God given heart and soul and mind and being, which I think would contradict the instruction Christ gave to ask and knock and seek for yourself, and would put to question the need for him to have sent you the Holy Spirit to minister to you since you can simply accept what you are told by the "Many people have been studying" for "thousands of years".

You assumed wrong sir/ma'am.
You told the other poster that there was a contradiction between genesis 1 & 2 and only by turning off one's brain and mind can one simply believe contradictions.

My statement was whether you really believe all the people spanning thousands of years spread across the globe who have dedicated their lives in studying this text and don't see a contradiction were simply turning off their brains and minds.

I made no assertion of whether they were right or wrong. It was simply a question of, do you really think these people including the gospel writers simple turned off their brains or do you think they were reading the text differently from how you were reading it and rather than finding a contradiction, they found a tension and harmony?
It was never a assertion of whether anyone was right or wrong.

I'll use an example to illustrate. Within the last few decades, there's been a growing number of Jesus mythicists amongst the general public. Even though almost no real historian save for Richard Carrier believes this to be true, there's a still a substantial amount of everyday people who believe Jesus is a mythical figure.
So I looked into their claims to know if there was any merit to it. I didnt just assume that they all didn't know what they were saying or they had no basis for believing what they believe.

Everyone has a basis for why they believe what they believe? That's never the question in my own understanding. The real question is, do their rationals have enough explanatory power to be the best possible explanation out of all the others.

Do note that Jesus spent a considerably amount of time being challenged by "Many people have been studying" for "thousands of years", and warned that they give stones instead of bread, hence, woe to them. He himself was crucified for using his own God given heart and soul and mind and being instead of accepting what he was told by the "Many people have been studying" for "thousands of years".

Okay so, Jesus's main opponents were the Pharisees. This group only emerged sometime during the intertestamental period(sometime during the 160s bce) , so that's not thousands of years.
Jesus' main challenge was against the oral tradition (the unwritten Torah).
Basically this were set of laws that were believed to have been given to Moses but we're not written down. This laws sort to regulate the Jewish people above and beyond what the Torah itself allowed.

Interestingly when challenged, Jesus usually pointed back to the first 2chapters of the Bible to counter them with " In the beginning" or pointed back to the Hebrew bible with statements like " isn't it written".

And that is exactly what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you if you can substantiate your claims with the text itself. If what you are saying can be sustained by the bible itself without reading your own perspectives(as much as possible), I'm really willing to engage. There's always room for seeing something new.

I'm off to sleep. Will read your response when I wake up. And thanks tons for your patience and time.

No problems sir/ma'am. Mondays can be hectic sometimes. Hope your Monday was good

HellVictorinho:
That dude says whatever he wants in the name of the Bible and people like you see him as -_#$$$$###


Whether you see him as deceptive or not

I consider him unnecessary





Who needs the Bible to reject someone that is unnecessary?

Good morning boss, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to get at

[quote author=budaatum post=106205017][/quote]Okay so, I think the first thing I'll like to point out is that the " multiply, fill the earth and so on" was a blessing and declaration, not an instruction.

Secondly, Adam wasn't placed in the garden as a slave. That is foreign to text.
That's actually more of a Mesopotamian and other Ancient near eastern conception of man, not a Jewish one.

Can I ask you, what do you think to subdue the earth and to rule over it meant?
And how do you think Jews and Jesus in particular understood this text?

budaatum:
What you claim is very possible and must be guided against. Jesus is written to have warned against it too when he is written to have said, "unless one becomes as a child". He meant, abandon preconceived ideas and beliefs and look at things with fresh eyes, which is what he did and was crucified for, after all, before his time, "Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period", yet he saw things rather different.

Really appreciate your response on stepping back and sometimes dropping out preconceived notions.
Just as an Aside: Jesus is part of the second temple period and is part of the people I was referring to.

That said, the text in question here is not exactly a contradiction. There were two distinct creation stories of different entities.

That's one theory.
Some other one's have been referred to on this thread also.

In the first was humankind and in the second was Adam and Eve, unless you'd like to claim the two creations were two naratives of the same creation which the text does not support since both creations were clearly given different instructions.

How do you mean? What different instructions are you referring to?

budaatum:
If you say so, though I do beg to differ as you'd see from my first post in this very thread.

I love the contradictions because they shock one into thinking instead of believing, since only by turning off one's brain and mind can one simply believe contradictions.

What if you are only seeing it as a contradiction because you're reading the text through a lens that is foreign to it?

Many people have been studying(not just reading) these texts as far back as the second temple period(That's still thousands of years, granting the most liberal dating). And they have come out with an harmony across the text.

Do you think all these people across space and time turned off their brains or do you think maybe; just maybe, it's possible that, if we allowed the text to speak in its own voice(as much as possible) without imposing ours on it, we might be able to see a tension, beauty and harmony within the first 3chapters of genesis?

Maybe picking up some good well grounded commentary on Genesis or the Pentateuch might help in sifting through it.
I'll recommend starting with

The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Genesis-Leviticus - John H. Sailhammer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr.,Richard Hess.

eliteweb:
Chief where u want make I start from?

Day go dark person for road ooo

The "where u make I start from" make me burst laff