Answer The Bible Studying Guy.

[Demo]

I'm a 27 year old Italian-Mexican male. I was raised in a Roman Catholic household. I went to CCD. I went to church. I said the Our Father every night at my bedside. Most of my formative years were spent as a devout Catholic. I was so much a Catholic that when it came time for first confession, I was so ashamed of myself that I wouldn't go. Since that time, I haven't taken communion. I have been back to church many times and there is a large part of me that still holds on to the belief in God and Jesus although I have studied and believed in many different religions. In my youth, I read most of the Bible, in parts. I have now decided to read the whole Bible and try to fathom a new understanding of God and my beliefs.

I started reading tonight, with a hope that I would find truth and faith. Unfortunately, from the first sentence, everything I read inspired doubt instead of belief. Somehow, my questioning nature has played against me in my pursuit of a newfound faith in God. I am asking the help of the Teeming Millions to dissect and find understanding in the Bible. Obviously, this relies mainly upon the Christians and Jews (and maybe even Muslims(for the OT at least)) a lot, but I would like the input of any who can offer analysis of my questions. Hence the reason I am pursuing help here, as opposed to a Christian board or discussion forum. This is going to be a slow process, as I am almost in need of line by line assistance. I realize Bible study or consultation of books and clergy may be in order, and perhaps I will use those sources as well but, as a start, I hope you will assist me here.

FYI, I am reading a Marian Edition Catholic Bible. Feel free to correct the syntax and wording from your bible of choice if it will add clarity to the subject matter.

Thanks,
Demo


Genesis 2.2 We all know the story of creation and, at this point, I feel a debate on the seven days would be fruitless. This is a debate I have no interest in at this juncture. My first catch is the sabbath. "And He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had done." Why would God need to rest? This doesn't make sense to me. If God is all-powerful, etc. then one wouldn't need to rest. What does this imply to man? What is the significance of the sabbath?

2.8 "God planted a garden in Eden, to the East" East of what? From reading, it is obvious that the garden is in Persia, but from what refference point is east?

2.9 There is a tree of life and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I have no problem with the good and evil so far, but what is the tree of life? Why is it mentioned, if not to be reffered to later?


I think this is more than enough for now. This should, and I'm sure has inspired enough debate for years. Due to the nature of the discussion, let's try not to get too deep into the individual subjects, and focus on the goal of comprehension of the bible. Please let me know if the format of questions can be changed to better suit the discussion.

Again, thanks for your help.

[henbin]

The reason reading inspires doubt is that religion is all made up. In church, you get caught up with the social aspects. But reading makes you think, and fairy tales can't take a close look without revealing their nature.

[jb_farley]

Tree of Life- A & E could have eaten from it and lived forever, but were banished after eating from the other tree.

remember that for most of their history, these stories were passed down mouth to mouth and existed in a context where the world was immensely large, where most of the earth was a mystery except for one's small section. these were folk stories, the main method of spiritual expression of the day.

keep in mind most of all that this scripture was both a driving force and a religious reflection of the Israelites. the stories were born of a culture, into which they were enacted, thereby changing the culture and bearing new scripture. and it wasn't until generation after generation after generation of refinemnet of both the culture and the scripture that the word was set down.

finally, keep in mind moby dick. yes, moby dick. the bible is filled with hundreds of pages and ten-thousands of words of how to flens a whale (well, not literally- but if you are a Literalist, then this conversation is basically moot). If you want to skip it, do it. It will cause no great loss of understanding of God. But if you do sit down and slog through it, you will get a much better sense of the book itself. But always remember that most parts aren't all that necessary (hell, the whole first half of the book had held its own for a while there).

mainly, keep in mind that it wasn't written for you to read it, but if you read it you'll probably be a better person for it.

jb

[Chewie]

For starters, I've posted something in the Cain's wife thread that my help. To address your questions point-by-point,
1)That point about rest is in the context that God was mandating a way of life, if you will, for man to follow. In other words, it is important to put aside time for fellowship with friends etc.
2)As far as I am aware, the pentateuch ( I'm the Jews here can correct me) was put together by Moses, while Israel was in the wilderness, thus East is East of the Sinai Peninsular.
3)Again, I believe this is a metaphor. Man had the choice of simply living in relationship with God, in which case deciding between right and wrong was not an issue, or deciding that he should define right and wrong for himself, irrespective of his creator.
On the subject of comprehension of the Bible, I would reccomend reading Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. Then read anything else by C.S.Lewis you can get your hands on. Also A Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee is very good.
Within the Bible itself, the book of Romans is a systematic explanation of the nature of Christianity, as Paul hadn't, at the time of writing, met the Roman church, and wanted to make sure they started off on the same foot, so to speak, when he did meet them.
Also, the gospels give, in my opinion the clearest picture of Gods nature. When reading them, check out Lewis's theory for yourself. According to Lewis, Christ was either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. The gospels don't leave the option of him being _only_ a prophet or teacher.
I'd love to discuss any other queries you might have, as I find it is the best way for me to learn.

[Navigator]

I think you have started a great endeavor.

1.) Sabbath
In Mark 2:27, Jesus says "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" By making the Sabbath holy (set apart), God was setting an example for his creation. He designed the human body to need rest, and one out of seven was his model. For every six days of work, one day of rest should be observed. The text doesn't say he had to rest, because he was tired, it just says he rested. Mostly for our benefit, IMO.

2.) I agree with Chewie, east of Sinai.

3.) There is another image of the Tree of Life. In Revelations Chapter 22, the Tree of Life is shown again in Heaven.

From Nelson's Bible Dictionary
TREE OF LIFE — the tree in the Garden of Eden that bestowed continuing life (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:1–24). Before Adam and Eve sinned, they had free access to the tree of life; after their act of rebellion, two Cherubim guarded the way to its fruit.

Adam and Eve’s inability to eat from this tree after their sin showed that they failed to gain immortality, or eternal life. Because of their sin, they were subject to death and dying. This condition lasted until the coming of Jesus Christ, the second Adam, who offers eternal life to all who believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 5:11–12).

HTH

[C K Dexter Haven]

Remember that the Bible was written in the language of its time. Thus, the poetic imagery was well-understood to the contemporary audience, but is often lost on us.

On God resting: The Bible uses human terms to describe God, throughout. "God said" -- but God has no mouth, per se. "God looked and saw it was good" -- well, of course, why did he need to look? Didn't He KNOW it was good? Similar anthropomorphisms occur throughout the text. Thus, "God rested" is an anthropomorphic expression of something that we can't really fathom. As others have commented, the easiest explanation is that God rested to show mankind that a day of rest was desirable.

To the east: Means east of Canaan, east of the Holy Land, of course... although probably also means east of Mesopotamia, as well. Regardless of how/when you think the text was composed, the audience was either in Canaan or in the Sinai wilderness, and they thought the world was flat. Hence, "east" made perfect sense.

Since most of the early parts of Genesis (Noah, Tower of Babel, Abr[ah]am leaving Ur) take place in Mesopotamia, "east" could also refer to further east than the Tigris/Euphrates valley.

Tree of Life: Well, it was the tree that produced weekly copies of LIFE magazine, of course. What else?

[Ptahlis]

You asked why God would need to rest, which makes sense if you look at the word "rest" to mean "recovery." It also can simply mean a period of inactivity or decreased activity. In the days beforehand, God was busy creating the firmament, raising the waters, desinging the platypus, and so forth. After he was done, the amount of his activity did seem to drop rather precipitously.

[Satan]

Demo:

I may be totally wrong here, and corrct me if I am.

It seems to me you might be going into this with some preconcieved notions about what you will find, and those notions - on one hand, some thing (a spark, a revelation, a sign, whatever) will hit you and you will "get it," and on the other hand, a confirmation of your creeping cynicism.

If I were you I would do my best to take these notions out of your mind. Try and look at it as if you are reading a book - nothing more, nothing less. It will speak to you in ways that you NEED to hear, not what you WANT to hear.

Good luck on your journey. When you finishg this journey, I'm sure that Dopers can suggest a plethoria of other spiritual texts which might expand your knowledge as well.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, four weeks, 13 hours, 3 minutes and 55 seconds.
6021 cigarettes not smoked, saving $752.72.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 45 minutes.

[cmkeller]

Democritus:

Good questions, all. Here is my understanding of those issues:

Genesis 2.2 My first catch is the sabbath. "And He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had done." Why would God need to rest? This doesn't make sense to me. If God is all-powerful, etc. then one wouldn't need to rest.

Correct. The word "rest" is a bit of a mistranslation, as is the word "work" when referring to the set of actions forbidden by Judaism to do on the Sabbath. The Hebrew term "Melacha" is the word usually translated as "work", specifically means creative work (as opposed to "Avodah", which would imply physical exertion). "Shabbos", the opposite of "Melacha," means to cease from creative work...not to rest from exertion. It merely means that G-d stopped creating at that point, not that he "needed to rest."

What does this imply to man? What is the significance of the sabbath?

Well, to us Jews, it implies that work is not something to be done constantly, but rather, that it is important to set aside times in which we specifically refrain from work and take stock of our actions and appreciate what we've done. If work becomes one's all-consuming passion, a person is empty inside. A time of non-work is essential to the cycle of life. And that time is ideal for spending in introspection and spiritual pursuits. The physical serves the spiritual, not the other way around.

So leave the cell phone and laptop behind when on vacation.

God planted a garden in Eden, to the East" East of what? From reading, it is obvious that the garden is in Persia, but from what refference point is east?

Again we run into translation issues, although here it's a bit more ambiguous. It could simply mean, as CKDextHavn said, East of Canaan, Egypt and the Sinai, as that's where the Jews were when the Torah was first presented to them. However, the Hebrew word used here is "mi-Kedem," which can also mean "at first." "Kedem," meaning first in Hebrew, means East as well, because that's the direction in which the sun is first seen. So it's possible that the verse in question is actually saying "G-d planted a garden in Eden at first" (in other words, this is the first place he prepared for human habitation).

2.9 There is a tree of life and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I have no problem with the good and evil so far, but what is the tree of life? Why is it mentioned, if not to be reffered to later?

It is referred to later...in Genesis 3:22, as implying that eating from the Tree of Life will impart eternal life. G-d sent Adam and Eve out of Eden after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge because if they stayed there, they might get the idea to eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. So this is a tree that is unique to Eden. Why it existed we're not sure, though it can be inferred from that context that its purpose could only have been properly served if they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge first.

[Trion]

I've mentioned this book in the "Cain's wife" thread, but I thought I'd mention it here too. I've recently finished Don't Know Much About the Bible by Kenneth C. Davis. It's an interesting beginners book on the Bible, what it means, why it includes the stuff it includes and a host of other Bible information. Check it out.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Navigator
3.) There is another image of the Tree of Life. In Revelations Chapter 22, the Tree of Life is shown again in Heaven.

Actually, it is not in heaven, but on earth in the Holy City of Jerusalem.

[Navigator]

I stand corrected...

[Demo]

henbin: That may be, but I'll just have to give it a chance.

Chewie: I actually have read Mere Christianity as awell as A case for Christianity, The Screwtape Letters and, of course, The Chronicles. He definitely appeals to my logical side.

Satan: You're right. Actually, I realized the futility of trying to read this piece by piece, so no I have two bookmarks: One placed where I am in the reading and one placed where I am in the questions.

Chaim, Dex, Navigator and everyone else, thanks for your great definitions and explanations.




Genesis 3.1-15 Your opinions on the serpent? Was this the devil?

4.15 ["Whoever kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold." Then the Lord gave Cain a token so that no one finding him should kill him.] Why was Cain protected any more than anyone else after he had just done a terrible thing? What was the token?

5.5 Adam lived 930 years? Is this a certain part of Adam's lineage or actually him? What is this meant to convey?

[cmkeller]

Democritus:

Once again, from the Orthodox Jewish perspective:

Genesis 3.1-15 Your opinions on the serpent? Was this the devil?

Most likely; the Talmud certainly makes some statements implying that. However, do realize that in Judaism, Satan is not an opponent of G-d, but a servant of G-d, who serves as the "prosecutor" in the "heavenly court," and as part of these duties, he tempts people to sin (yes, in modern American law, that would be considered illegal entrapment). In executing his duties toward Adam and Eve, he used the form of the snake. The snake was punished because of this, since all animals are intended to be utilized by human beings in their service of G-d, and, as its original form (with legs, capable of speech) was clearly more of an impediment to humanity than a boon (as Satan was able to utilize it to tempt Eve into sin), it had to be altered so that humanity would have an aversion to it.

4.15 ["Whoever kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold." Then the Lord gave Cain a token so that no one finding him should kill him.] Why was Cain protected any more than anyone else after he had just done a terrible thing?

He repented afterward, when he said "My sin is too great to bear." G-d had already punished him with constant wandering (bad enough punishment for anyone, but certainly for a dedicated farmer!); his repentance made it so that no further punishment was warranted.

What was the token?

Uncertain. Some Midrashim say a horn grew on his forehead, some say a letter of G-d's holy name was written on his forehead, some say his skin turned white (which is ironic, as there have been racists who have called blacks "children of Cain").

5.5 Adam lived 930 years? Is this a certain part of Adam's lineage or actually him? What is this meant to convey?

It is intended to refer specifically to Adam. While there might be some greater significance to the number that I'm not aware of, I think most of the numbers in Genesis 5 are intended merely to demonstrate that human lifespans were a lot longer prior to the flood than following it, indicating a wide-ranging change in nature due to the flood.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by cmkeller
G-d had already punished him with constant wandering (bad enough punishment for anyone, but certainly for a dedicated farmer!); his repentance made it so that no further punishment was warranted.

But, God never in fact made Cain a fugitive and a wanderer. He wasn't a fugitive because of the token, and he wasn't a wanderer since he went and dwelt in Nod and built Enoch.

[cmkeller]

jmullaney:

But, God never in fact made Cain a fugitive and a wanderer. He wasn't a fugitive because of the token,

Punishment is not the only thing in the world that one could be a fugitive from.

and he wasn't a wanderer since he went and dwelt in Nod and built Enoch.

He didn't necessarily reside permanently in Nod; that's merely where he went after he was expelled from his home.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[tracer]

Democritus wrote:

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household. I went to CCD.

You visited a Charge-Coupled Device?

(I guess this gives new meaning to the "holy see". <rimshot>)

[capacitor]

I have one: why is there so much misogyny in the Bible:

1) the missing name of Noah's wife, the second mother of all humankind, as well as many women;

2) the allowance of husbands having multiple wives but not vice versa;

3) the explicit verses that indicate that women are to submit to their husbands

4) "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (2 Timothy 2:12, Revised Standard)

This disturbing omission of important women, as well as the scripural commands to women to submit authority to men, seem inconsistent to the relative egalitarian history of Jews. This is the main reason why I'm not a Christian today.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Demo-
You were ashamed to go to confession? I think you're missing the point of what confession is for.

See, if you go to confession, then you do penance, which is usually harmless*, generally consisting of prayers or some kind of charitable work. Then you get to be absolved of your sins. It's a great way of unloading shame and guilt, and a lot cheaper than therapy.

I don't really enjoy making confessions, but I always feel a lot better afterward.


*usually. One time at a church supper (in my church, you're always getting fed. Fr. Francis takes the calories out of the food, though) Fr. Francis told the story of an old Italian priest he knew back in New York who had a woman in his parish who was a malicious gossip. She ruined a lot of perfectly nice people's reputations. Once when she went to confession, the priest, as penance, made her clean the center aisle of the church.


With her tongue.

[Chewie]

I would also recommend reading C.S.Lewis's Surprised by Joy, his retelling of the journey you are now on.
On the subject of women in the Bible, I would suggest looking at context a lot.

1) As far as I am aware, the old testament law was a lot more reasonable than any of the other ethics systems around at the time.

2) Paul also refers to female church leaders as close friends and fellow workers, I think one in particular was called Penelope. I think the comments about women speaking in church and such related to women using meetings as a place to catch up and have a gossip while the men were studying the scriptures. I think this pattern would have carried over from the Jewish tradition.

Just my take on those issues.
Oh, and I thought that satan was actually the Jewish word for accuser. Thus calling the leader of the fallen angel Satan within Christian theology would indicate to me that his main attack on the Christian is in the form of accusation, to try to invalidate our justification by faith, not works.

Incidentally, I went to a Catholic school myself for awhile, and I must say I find this idea of salvation through faith _and_ works to be baffling. I can only assume it was put in place while the masses couldn't read the Bible themselves, and served to increase the power of the Church Administration.

[Navigator]

capacitor:
I have one: why is there so much misogyny in the Bible:

Better question, why is there not more?

1) the missing name of Noah's wife, the second mother of all humankind, as well as many women;
The culture in the Bible tracked generations by the male of the family, and that was kept fairly well. But in the geneology of Jesus we find the names of Ruth (a simple widow of another people, that returned to Israel to serve her widowed mother-in-law), and Rahab (a harlot that his Hebrew spies prior to the destruction of Jehrico). The wives of all the Patriarchs are mentioned, as is the wife of Moses, who wasn't even a Hebrew. Two books of the Bible are named after Women, and one doesn't even mention 'God' in the text (the Book of Esther).

2) the allowance of husbands having multiple wives but not vice versa;
That men had more than one wife is true, that is was allowed is a stretch. God consistently portrayed marriage as a 'one man, one woman' thing. David's downfall was because of his straying eye, as was Solomon's. Because something happened in the text, doesn't mean it was allowed or even condoned.

3) the explicit verses that indicate that women are to submit to their husbands
Just prior to that is a verse that says, 'submit to one another, as is pleasing to the Lord' The culture at the time pretty much let the male of the family rule over his house, this mutual submission was a radical idea at the time. Also read Proverbs 31, to see the picture of a Biblical wife.

4) "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (2 Timothy 2:12, Revised Standard)
A much disputed passage. Not for what it says, but for the context in which it was said. Timothy's pastorage was in the Ephesus/Cornith region, where the false teaching at the time had converted a number of female women who were radical in their belief's. Additionally the culture in that region had many 'women of the night' that dressed and acted differently than the majority of the women. This difference was what Paul was combatting, and by stating a 'dress code' and a 'worship order' he combatted the false teachings in the region.

All that said the early church did have females in leadership roles. Which was totally against the popular culture as I have read.

An interesting article on the Topic: Women in the Heart of God (http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/femalex.html)

HTH


This disturbing omission of important women, as well as the scripural commands to women to submit authority to men, seem inconsistent to the relative egalitarian history of Jews. This is the main reason why I'm not a Christian today.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[Navigator]

whoops.. that bottom portion shuld be quoted and placed before my last line with the link. Sorry.

Peace.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I have nothing to add to CMK's comments on the serpent, etc. The conversation between Eve and the serpent is worth reading carefully; notice how the serpent tries different approaches, to see which one will work. This is NOT as simple a story as it appears on the surface.

Also, may I suggest that the question of Bible attitudes towards women be put into a different topic? This topic is getting long and complex enough on its own; and the topic of the role of women in the Bible is worthy of a separate thread. Please?

[lastgasp]

So it would logically follow that God is accountable for the existence of evil, as he created (and blessed ironically prior to the dissension) the serpent, and also created a capacity for sin in humans. Of course the usual interpretation is that humanity is cursed for eating the fruit and consequently they themselves are responsible for their banishment from paradise. Yet at the very least, the existence of the serpent comes before the creation of man, so therefore evil was already lurking in the weeds. The important point though is that the serpent (Satan/..) is an inferior creation of God's; in a dualistic system, we would not have this problem.

I see two answers to this problem. The first being that God is imperfect, in that he did not have complete control over his creation. Or, that in a circuitous way, this was God's intention all along, thus implying a certain importance, if nothing else, for the existence of evil in the world. Either way, there's no scarcity of ramifications. Any thoughts on this one?

[cmkeller]

lastgasp:

This question is one that has been debated numerous times on this board. I'll summarize the answer, but for finer points, I'd recommend doing a thorough search before posting more to this thread. At the very least, if you can't find those other threads, please post the question as a seperate thread, as it has little to do with this subject. Now, that summary:

G-d is not imperfect. He does not lack control over his creation because he's not able to control them (implying imperfection). He created man with the capacity for free will because he wanted to create free-will creatures. Part of the exercise of free will involves temptation to go either way...if one choice is completely pointless, then not choosing it is not an exercise of will, it's merely the clear choice. Thus, you are correct that the potential for evil plays an important role in the grand scheme of things.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[lastgasp]

I think the existence of evil is of vast importance to Gen 3, but for the sake of diplomacy, I'll make it quick.

What about the existence of the snake? Presumably God created it in Gen 1:21 and then subsequently blessed it as he did all of his creations. As of yet man was not created. So if we assume God is not imperfect, than he created the serpent (and evil) with some higher goal in mind.

What I was going after was that typically the accountability for evil in the world is blamed on humans for their original sin. Yet clearly evil predates the existence of humans (as above). So why did he create the serpent?

[cmkeller]

Now I understand. Here's the scoop (according to Orthodox Jewish tradition):

The snake, like all creatures, was created for man's use. Snakes are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. It was intended that man use the snake, in its original form, for a good purpose. What that is I can't be 100% sure, but heck, I'm not sure what the purpose of the duck-billed platypus is either.

When Satan was doing his job to test Adam and Eve as to whether they'd act good or evil, he felt the snake would be the ideal creature through which to convince them. Apparently, he was right. However, this does not mean that the snake was intended specifically for the purpose of evil.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Demo]

Thank you, everyone. Your discussion is fascinating and a wonderful companion to my reading.

agiasofia, clean the aisle with her tongue? ::gasp:: I realized what confession was, but the overwhelming emphasis on guilt was what turned me away. What can I say, I was a guilty little kid. ;)

Anyway, I have some more questions for you:

Gen 6.4 speaks of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of en" giving birth to "giants". That brought back something I read as a kid and expected to see here, but didn't. A friend of the family gave me a "Book of Bible Stories"(Mormon) when I was a kid, so it might have come from there: That the sons of God were angels, not men. Hence, the giants. Anyway, I'd like some input on that.

Second, how much is a cubit?

Third is about incest. I didn't get too much from the Cain's Wife thread. I mean, even Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. What's the story on that?

[Navigator]

cubit: IIRC, distance from elbow to tips of fingers ~ 18 inches.

I'll dig up some stuff on the 'sons of God' fer ya...

[cmkeller]

Democritus:

Gen 6.4 speaks of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of en" giving birth to "giants". That brought back something I read as a kid and expected to see here, but didn't. A friend of the family gave me a "Book of Bible Stories"(Mormon) when I was a kid, so it might have come from there: That the sons of God were angels, not men. Hence, the giants. Anyway, I'd like some input on that.

My understanding of the Jewish commentaries on that verse is that there are two different interpretations:

1) As you heard, the "sons of G-d" refer to angels. The angels saw how wicked man was being, and told G-d he should destroy them. G-d told them to have some understanding; if they had human passions and temptations, they wouldn't do any better. The angels told G-d they would and that he should test them, so he sent them to Earth with the human capacity for temptation, and sure enough, they succumbed, giving rise to a race of giants.

2) The phrase you have found translated as "sons of G-d" is actually intended to mean "sons of the mighty" (the Hebrew word "E-lo-him," usually used to refer to G-d, can also mean anyone in a position of power). This verse is describing how the mighty amongst the humans abused their positions of power and took advantage of many women, bearing powerful and physically large children, who came to be considered giants.

Second, how much is a cubit?

A cubit is the measure of an arm's lengthm from shoulder to fingertip, of an average person. Jewish scholars are not 100% certain exactly what the standard measure was, but the estimates are all between 18 and 22 inches.

Third is about incest. I didn't get too much from the Cain's Wife thread. I mean, even Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. What's the story on that?

Well, Cain was a special case, and should be ignored when it comes to general discussion of pre-Sinai incest rules. Also, Sarah was actually not even Abraham's half-sister, but his niece; however, it was common at the time (and even much later) to colloquially refer to grandparents as parents, or to grandchildren as children (hence, when Abraham tells Pharaoh that Sarah is the daughter of his father and not of his mother, he actually means she id the granddaughter of his father). Now, regarding that general issue of incest: my understanding (though I could be wrong, and I invite correction from others) is that the sibling incest prohibited by Noahide laws only applies to full siblings, not to half siblings. (It is only by Israelite law, from the time of the giving of the Torah at Sinai, that even half-siblings are not allowed to get it on.) This difference between Noahide law and later Torah law is also why it was permitted for Jacob to marry two sisters; by the laws that applied at the time, it was not yet forbidden.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Navigator]

Sons of Gods:

Three schools of thought
Cosmologically mixed races: Angels breeded with humans to produce the 'Nephilim'.
Religiously mixed races: Godly Sethite line, breeded with the ungodly Cainite line, producing the 'Nephilim'.
Sociological mixed line: Despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners.

Which ever theory you accept the bottom line is the progeny of the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' were adversely affected from the mix, and so it was that God grieved over the increased wickedness on planet Earth. Every inclination of the hearts and thoughts of humanity was evil. (Source: Hard Sayings of the Bible)

a web source: Who were the Sons of God? (http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/qgensix.html)

HTH

[Gaudere]

Chaim:
A cubit is the measure of an arm's lengthm from shoulder to fingertip, of an average person. Jewish scholars are not 100% certain exactly what the standard measure was, but the estimates are all between 18 and 22 inches.Shoulder to fingertip? Either you misspoke, or early man was shorter than we have evidence of them being. ;) I'm 5'3" and my shoulder-to-fingertip measure is 25", measuring from the armpit to the middle finger. I've always heard, as Nav says, that it's elbow to fingertip--approx. 17" on me--which would probably place the average male, even back then when the average height was shorter than now, in the 18" to 22" range .

[cmkeller]

My mistake...elbow it is.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by cmkeller
Democritus:
Well, Cain was a special case, and should be ignored when it comes to general discussion of pre-Sinai incest rules. Also, Sarah was actually not even Abraham's half-sister, but his niece; however, it was common at the time (and even much later) to colloquially refer to grandparents as parents, or to grandchildren as children (hence, when Abraham tells Pharaoh that Sarah is the daughter of his father and not of his mother, he actually means she id the granddaughter of his father). Now, regarding that general issue of incest: my understanding (though I could be wrong, and I invite correction from others) is that the sibling incest prohibited by Noahide laws only applies to full siblings, not to half siblings. (It is only by Israelite law, from the time of the giving of the Torah at Sinai, that even half-siblings are not allowed to get it on.) This difference between Noahide law and later Torah law is also why it was permitted for Jacob to marry two sisters; by the laws that applied at the time, it was not yet forbidden.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Chaim,

You are correct. A paternal half-sibling is permitted for marriage, according to Noahide law. A maternal half-sibling, however, is not.

Zev Steinhardt

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by cmkeller

5.5 Adam lived 930 years? Is this a certain part of Adam's lineage or actually him? What is this meant to convey?

It is intended to refer specifically to Adam. While there might be some greater significance to the number that I'm not aware of, I think most of the numbers in Genesis 5 are intended merely to demonstrate that human lifespans were a lot longer prior to the flood than following it, indicating a wide-ranging change in nature due to the flood.

[/B]

Chaim,
I might have this wrong, but I think I remember a tradition that says that Adam was supposed to live a thousand years, but he knew (from eating the fruit of the tree?), that King David would have died at birth, so he asked G-d to take 70 years from him and give it to David.

[cmkeller]

You are correct, that is one story mentioned in the Midrash.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[tomndebb]

Incidentally, I went to a Catholic school myself for awhile, and I must say I find this idea of salvation through faith _and_ works to be baffling. I can only assume it was put in place while the masses couldn't read the Bible themselves, and served to increase the power of the Church Administration.
So James did not really write anything that is Scripture? Jesus was simply speaking to abet the acquisition of political power among Church leaders?

People can read the New Testament (particularly Romans, of course) and come to different conclusions. It is not necessary to simply treat every disagreement as having been rooted in greed or power or corruption.

[Chewie]

I know that James said that faith without works is dead, and also that Jesus said "Be ye perfect, as I am perfect" or something like that. My point is that while we are called to a standard, we are not saved by attaining it.
If we honestly have faith, then our lives will bear witness to that faith. It will show in our actions. However our relationship with God does not depend on our actions, but rather the other way around.
At the catholic school I went to, I was also informed, by a history teacher, that Queen Elizabeth the 1st, was also known as the Whore of England. Apparently she also practised witchcraft, and was probably dancing naked on the beach, drinking the blood of virgins, when the Spanish Armarda was sunk.
This all stemmed from her evil plan, cunningly disguised as a compromise between catholics and no-catholics, to do something evil.
I firmly believe, and have been told so by more liberal catholic clergy, that a fair bit of doctrine laid down in the middle ages was aimed at secular, rather than spiritual goals. Particularly the goal of increasing the power of the clergy over all others.

[tomndebb]

"Look at these Christians. See how they love one another."

In addition to some libels against Elizabeth, it is also true that a priest wrote a rather scurrilous "biography" of Luther in which he portrayed Luther as morally corrupt and an utter hypocrite who did not even believe his own "rantings." The text of the "biography" was being cited in Catholic schools even into this century. Absolutely shameful.

Of course, Jack Chick doesn't have the brains to actually invent the lies he tells about Catholicism and most of those tall tales he has stolen from his equally hate-filled Catholic-bashing predecessors among the Protestant troops. (There is/was a bible handbook in print as recently as the 1980's in the appendix of which I found the religious wars of Mary and Elizabeth against their own people told from a purely anti-Catholic viewpoint--including a number of outright falsehoods.)

While there is no question that many laws were created to support the temporal power of the RCC, there is no Doctrine that I have found that arose from those abuses. (For example, the abuses regarding Indulgences against which Luther originally protested were actually violations of Church law--such as simony--not Catholic Doctrine.)

The RCC does not actually teach that people can save themselves through works--much as that is a popular view in some circles. The RCC's position is rather closer to the one that you laid out: The response of faith to God's Salvation must be demostrated in works. Man cannot save himself, but having been saved in love, man is required to respond with love for his fellow man.

[jmullaney]

Even Jesus said -- "whoever has faith in me shall do works"

(he also said about sola scripturist's that they neither know the scriptures nor the power of God)

Still confused by the people who think Paul knew better than J.C. ...

[SuaSponte]

I'm loving the thread so far, but I can't sit quietly in the face of all this wanton and rampant praise of C.S. Lewis. Surprised by Joy is an interesting and, in some ways fascinating, story of one man's spiritual journey, but, as a theological/philisophical text, it, well, sucks. Re-read the portion where he takes the last step, from Theism to Catholicism (as opposed to another religion). It makes no sense, and just highlights Lewis' cultural bigotry.

As for Lewis' other books mentioned in this thread, Lewis is generally one of the more insipid Catholic apologists.

My $.02 having been put in, I retire to follow along with the thread as it develops.

Sua

[Navigator]

IIRC Lewis was not Catholic.

[emarkp]

Navigator:
That men had more than one wife is true, that is was allowed is a stretch. God consistently portrayed marriage as a 'one man, one woman' thing. David's downfall was because of his straying eye, as was Solomon's. Because something happened in the text, doesn't mean it was allowed or even condoned.

No, David's problem was that he killed Uriah to hide his adultery and took her to be his wife. As for God allowing/endorsing multiple wives, read for yourself (note the Thus saith the LORD part...):

2 Samuel 12:7-10

12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

[Navigator]

Go ahead and read back in Deuteronomy, chapter 17 around vs. 14ff.

Peace.

[Maeglin]

IIRC Lewis was not Catholic.

Yes, he was a Catholic. JRR Tolkien converted him, in fact.

MR

[Polycarp]

C.S. Lewis was, of course, a member of the Holy Catholic Church. He was, however, not a Roman Catholic, but rather a member of the Church of England. (Cites on request.)

[Chewie]

I don't think so. C.S. Lewis was an Anglican, largely I believe because that was the mainstream form of Christianity in his area. he has commented in another of his works (can't remember which one) that he doesn't really like congregationalist church systems on the grounds that a large part of the practice of Christianity involved getting on with those around you.
I must also admit to being baffled by the insipid comment. How? In what way was Jack insipid?
BTW JRR Tolkein didn't convert Jack, he was one of Jack's christian friends who influenced him at the time.
Tolkein was Catholic, Jack was Anglican. Just like polycarp said.
And I'm still curious re: the use of the word insipid in the context of Jack Lewis.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Polycarp
C.S. Lewis was, of course, a member of the Holy Catholic Church. He was, however, not a Roman Catholic, but rather a member of the Church of England. (Cites on request.)

Could you provide the cites? It's been a long time since I've read Mr. Lewis (as my earlier post hinted, I'm not fond of him), I was first introduced to his writing in the course of a college class on 20th Century RCC philosophers/apologists/etc. I mean, I thought the professor who taught the class was pretty bad, but I don't think he was so incompetent as to accidently slip an Anglican into the mix. :)

Chewie, my opinion of Mr. Lewis as insipid is a personal one, based upon my readings of him. I'm not going to go into a point-by-point analysis, as I've already hijacked Demo's thread too much. Further, the debate may get too emotional, as you appear to have been on a first-name basis with the man. :D Suffice to say that, to me, Mr. Lewis is the Ayn Rand of Christian apologists.
Sua

[cmkeller]

Navigator:

The verse in Deuteronomy that you quoted was specifically an injunction to kings, and specifically an injunction against keeping an excessive number of wives (which the Talmud derives means more than 18). It is clear from a number of places in the Old Testament that men are permitted to marry more than one woman.

Examples:

Leviticus 18:18 - "`Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." If polygamy in general was prohibited. there would be no need to specifically prohibit polygamy with two sisters.

Deuteronomy 21:15 - "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,..." Suffice it to say that these verses deal with the children, not with the wives, and both children are considered completely legitimate.

Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller@freeatlast.com

[Polycarp]

The following is taken from a FAQ list linked from but not located on the site of http:\\cslewis.drzeus.net -- which site is copyrighted but I could find no copyright notice regarding the FAQ. I will take responsibility under the fair use provisions for quoting it here. Since everybody from the RCC to the evangelical right of protestantism claims him, I've quoted the full description of his beliefs vis-a-vis both the above-named. While he would have never denied his Anglican beliefs, I think he would have been happiest described as a "mere Christian."

3.1 Was Lewis a Roman Catholic? Didn't he believe in Purgatory?

Lewis was not a Catholic. He was and remained an Anglican (Church of England) for his post-conversion life, describing himself as 'neither particularly "high", nor particularly "low" '. He was critical of some specific aspects of the Catholic faith - memorably commenting that if the Virgin Mary is like the best of human mothers, she doesn't want attention directed at herself instead of her Son! On the other hand, in 'Letters to Malcolm' and elsewhere, he defends the idea of Purgatory as a necessary 'cleaning up time' for the soul before entering the company of heaven - although he acknowledged that the doctrine was open to abuse.


'I hope' he writes 'that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am coming round, a voice will say "Rinse your mouth out with this." *This* will be purgatory.'

In the essay 'Christian Reunion' he states that the real disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is not about any particular belief, but about the source and nature of doctrine and authority:


'The real reason I cannot be in communion with you is... that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces'.

When Lewis was working on 'Mere Christianity', he had Book II vetted by Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian clergymen, to avoid any hint of denominational bias creeping in. In a telling passage in 'Allegory of Love' he recognises the potential flaws in both the Catholic and the Protestant paths:


'When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world-wide *religio* of amulets and holy places and priest craft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes.'

3.2: What did Lewis think about the Bible? Was he a fundamentalist?

Here we again run into semantic difficulties, what is meant by 'fundamentalist'? Jack did believe that the Bible was the word of God, but he also believed that we were given our minds to use them.

In his 'Reflections on the Psalms' Lewis says:


'At one point I had to explain how I differed on a certain point from both Catholics and Fundamentalists: I hope I shall not for this forfeit the goodwill or the prayers of either. Nor do I much fear it.'

The 'certain matter' is, again, the source of authority: although he regards much of the Bible as being the historical truth, he cannot regard it as a source of absolute certainty, as fundamentalists do.

His two most sustained discussions of the Bible are 'Fern Seed and Elephants' (an essay in the collection of the same title) and the chapter 'Scripture' in 'Reflections on the Psalms'.

[SuaSponte]

Thanks Polycarp... I won't be passing this tidbit onto my old professor - he's retired, and I see no reason to embarass him (although he should be embarassed, as am I for taking his word for it).
Sua