Is Jesus a black man?

[2ndAmendment]

Then there were cave men. How many skeletons do they have to find?




I know that. I was talking and typing.


No! You are working from history provided by a story that was first told by men to men, then later written by men, then translated by more men.





I believe. I just interpret the stories different than you.


Are the Jews not his chosen people? Did he not choose to let Noah's family live as he drowned the rest?

I don't reject. Again I interpret it differently than you.



We should all make our own choice and base our own beliefs of God on our own interpretation. Not those given by the masses of others.
Everyone has their own relationship with the father. Mine is not the same as yours.
How do you know that God didn't choose me to go down another path.

As a modern man of a modern world, having more knowledge than ever before in the history of mankind.
We still quest for knowledge of our being.
In the early days men asked these questions.
But man was superstitious and ignorant and God knew he couldn't reveal more than man could handle.
So the stories were appropriate for there time.

How do you know that God wouldn't rather me believe the way I believe, rather than for me to lose faith in him and not believe in him at all.

Maybe God has me write what I write because others have lost faith in him. Because in these modern times the Old Testament stories are just to hard to swallow for modern man.

All who has written words inspired by his faith in God has been persecuted by the masses of the faith.

Gumbo, as usual, you have your mind made up and nothing anyone will post will deter you from your ignorance. Carry on, but know that you are wrong.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Normally, I would agree with you. However, Gen 2 clearly shows Adam being created earlier:

Genesis 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.​

Before!

Genesis 1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.​

Thus, before the third day. Basically, the second day. This is what the two chapters of Genesis show us about when Adam was created.

Now, Eve, on the other hand:

Genesis 2:18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.​

So, this is AFTER the cattle, the foul, the plants, etc. This is day 6.



99.999999% of the time, I would defer to your higher biblical knowledge. However, this is very clear.

You need to read that again. Genesis 2 generally relates the events of one day, the sixth day. Genesis 1 is the short synopsis of the first 6 days. Day six is the day that both Adam and later in that same day, Eve, were created.

Read the two chapters together. Chapter one is the week view of the event planner and chapter two is the day view of day six.

 

[This_person]

You need to read that again. Genesis 2 generally relates the events of one day, the sixth day. Genesis 1 is the short synopsis of the first 6 days. Day six is the day that both Adam and later in that same day, Eve, were created.

Read the two chapters together. Chapter one is the week view of the event planner and chapter two is the day view of day six.

I respectfully disagree. It's quite clear that Adam was there before the plants and before the animals, and Eve came after all of that. God made man (in Adam) clearly and specifically stated before plants and animals.

Gen 2:4 says that Chapter 2 is about the whole thing, again. But this time, there's a different emphasis. This time, the emphasis isn't a time line, but a relationship between God and man.

I usually have deference to your opinion over mine on Bible readings, but I don't see how it can be taken differently. It's quite plainly written when Adam was created - BEFORE plants.

 

[tommyjones]

Gen 2:4 says that Chapter 2 is about the whole thing, again. But this time, there's a different emphasis. This time, the emphasis isn't a time line, but a relationship between God and man.

answered your own question....

 

[PsyOps]

Gen 2:4 says that Chapter 2 is about the whole thing, again. But this time, there's a different emphasis. This time, the emphasis isn't a time line, but a relationship between God and man.

I, more-or-less, said this way back on page 7.

Chapter 1 of Genesis explains God’s creation to include man. Chapter 2 explains, in a little more detail, the creation and roles of man. I believe there may have been others created during the events of creation, but the Bible’s purpose (in my understanding) in terms of Adam and Eve are in genealogy.

This whole debate about the order of things, how Noah got the animals on the ark, how they all fit, were there already people when Adam and Eve were created serves nothing more than a distraction for the real message of the Bible. It also serves as a means to maintain the belief that there are inconsistencies while ignoring the larger truth of the Bible: God's plan for our salvation.

 

[tommyjones]

I, more-or-less, said this way back on page 7.



This whole debate about the order of things, how Noah got the animals on the ark, how they all fit, were there already people when Adam and Eve were created serves nothing more than a distraction for the real message of the Bible. It also serves as a means to maintain the belief that there are inconsistencies while ignoring the larger truth of the Bible: God's plan for our salvation.

I agree with you 100% if the bible is being taken as a collection of fables.

if on the other hand it is being declared the one truth as dictated by god, the inconsistancies are too numerous to overlook. If the writings were actually dictated by god, you would think he would have given a more consistant story.

 

[Marie]

I agree with you 100% if the bible is being taken as a collection of fables.

if on the other hand it is being declared the one truth as dictated by god, the inconsistancies are too numerous to overlook. If the writings were actually dictated by god, you would think he would have given a more consistant story.

Id love to see the inconsistancies can you give me any?

 

[tommyjones]

Id love to see the inconsistancies can you give me any?

how about the one we are talking about right now.....

It apparently says that man and woman were created both on the sixth day, and that adam was created some time before that.........

sounds inconsistant to me. unless you like TP believe that god was creating a bunch of other people on the sixth day. So how many people did god "create"?
if you answer is two (adam and eve), then there is an apparent inconsistancy.

 

[PsyOps]

I agree with you 100% if the bible is being taken as a collection of fables.

if on the other hand it is being declared the one truth as dictated by god, the inconsistancies are too numerous to overlook. If the writings were actually dictated by god, you would think he would have given a more consistant story.

Well, that's not what I said at all. But isn't that an odd paradox, if it's a bunch of fables then the inconsistencies are acceptable, but we claim there is truth to it then the inconsistencies are unacceptable.

But you demand the Bible (the Word of God) be written according to rules you set. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't minimize the truth of it nor does it minimize who God is.

 

[tommyjones]

Well, that's not what I said at all. But isn't that an odd paradox, if it's a bunch of fables then the inconsistencies are acceptable, but we claim there is truth to it then the inconsistencies are unacceptable.

But you demand the Bible (the Word of God) be written according to rules you set. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't minimize the truth of it nor does it minimize who God is.

logic says that if it is indeed truth, then it can stand to a logical examination.....
if it is a fable, then it doesn't matter, its just a story.

 

[PsyOps]

how about the one we are talking about right now.....

It apparently says that man and woman were created both on the sixth day, and that adam was created some time before that.........

sounds inconsistant to me. unless you like TP believe that god was creating a bunch of other people on the sixth day. So how many people did god "create"?
if you answer is two (adam and eve), then there is an apparent inconsistancy.

And I tried to answer this. The first chapter it says God created man the human race. Since God didn't go into detail about this creation, it could be interpreted as a bunch of people. Chapter 2 specifically talks about Adam and Eve. I believe this was in terms of our role as man as God granted us and in terms of lineage for later generations. From this point on the Bible goes into detail about later generations from Adam and Eve.

I don't see where there is any inconsistency in this.

 

[tommyjones]

And I tried to answer this. The first chapter it says God created man the human race. Since God didn't go into detail about this creation, it could be interpreted as a bunch of people. Chapter 2 specifically talks about Adam and Eve. I believe this was in terms of our role as man as God granted us and in terms of lineage for later generations. From this point on the Bible goes into detail about later generations from Adam and Eve.

I don't see where there is any inconsistency in this.

well the inconsistancy is that either god created adam and eve as the mother and father of all people, or he created another bunch of people he doesnt talk about in the book that are also our common ancestors.

which is it?

if its left up to "can be interpreted as" then it is no longer the word of god, its all about "how i feel when i read the book"

 

[This_person]

answered your own question....

I don't have a question on this.

 

[This_person]

And I tried to answer this. The first chapter it says God created man the human race. Since God didn't go into detail about this creation, it could be interpreted as a bunch of people. Chapter 2 specifically talks about Adam and Eve. I believe this was in terms of our role as man as God granted us and in terms of lineage for later generations. From this point on the Bible goes into detail about later generations from Adam and Eve.

I don't see where there is any inconsistency in this.

To me it reads like you and I agree, in principle, on this. Adam and Eve, and their lineage, is what Chapter 2 begins. Chapter One was about the even bigger picture of all. That the story stresses different details in each chapter is not inconsistent, merely different pieces of equally true information being given out.

 

[This_person]

well the inconsistancy is that either god created adam and eve as the mother and father of all people, or he created another bunch of people he doesnt talk about in the book that are also our common ancestors.

which is it?

if its left up to "can be interpreted as" then it is no longer the word of god, its all about "how i feel when i read the book"

What is the point of knowing the distinction? Does it change ANY of the pertinent information?

My personal opinion is that there is no inconsistency. It says God created Adam from the lifeless dirt, it says God created Eve from Adam. It says there were other people around after Adam and Eve left the Garden. Since God created EVERYTHING, it seems pretty clear the book is telling us that He created other people (otherwise, where did they come from?). This is not a "gotcha", 'cuz the Book says they're there. This isn't inconsistent, it's merely leaving out the details that are not pertinent to the story.

The Bible is not the complete book of all you WANT to know. It's the complete book of all you NEED to know.

 

[tommyjones]

What is the point of knowing the distinction? Does it change ANY of the pertinent information?

My personal opinion is that there is no inconsistency. It says God created Adam from the lifeless dirt, it says God created Eve from Adam. It says there were other people around after Adam and Eve left the Garden. Since God created EVERYTHING, it seems pretty clear the book is telling us that He created other people (otherwise, where did they come from?). This is not a "gotcha", 'cuz the Book says they're there. This isn't inconsistent, it's merely leaving out the details that are not pertinent to the story.

The Bible is not the complete book of all you WANT to know. It's the complete book of all you NEED to know.

according to your interpretation.....which you have melded to take care of this inconsistancy.

to anyone who believes that adam and eve were the only people god created and that all other humans come from them, this is an inconsistancy.

and it obviously changes the pertinent information. either we are all from common ancestors (i.e. brothers and sisters as described by christianity) or we aren't.

that seems pertinent to me.

 

[This_person]

according to your interpretation.....which you have melded to take care of this inconsistancy.

to anyone who believes that adam and eve were the only people god created and that all other humans come from them, this is an inconsistancy.

Well, regardless of what people believe, the story says what it says. My "interpretation" is merely reading the information provided.

and it obviously changes the pertinent information. either we are all from common ancestors (i.e. brothers and sisters as described by christianity) or we aren't.

that seems pertinent to me.

If we're not all from common ancestors, we can't be brothers and sisters in Christ? You clearly miss many points of the stories!

PS, if it helps, we're all from Noah and his family, and Noah is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve (you know, the "she who is to become the mother of all living"), so we are all from the same common ancestors, regardless (see how it's not pertinent) of how one "interprets" the first couple of chapters of Genesis.

 

[tommyjones]

Well, regardless of what people believe, the story says what it says. My "interpretation" is merely reading the information provided.If we're not all from common ancestors, we can't be brothers and sisters in Christ? You clearly miss many points of the stories!

PS, if it helps, we're all from Noah and his family, and Noah is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve (you know, the "she who is to become the mother of all living"), so we are all from the same common ancestors, regardless (see how it's not pertinent) of how one "interprets" the first couple of chapters of Genesis.

bwhahahahahaha

if its not important then why did god direct people to write it down?
seems it was important to him.

i guess its equally not pertinent how someone interprets the gospels. (i.e. christ is or isn't god)

 

[Marie]

how about the one we are talking about right now.....

It apparently says that man and woman were created both on the sixth day, and that adam was created some time before that.........

sounds inconsistant to me. unless you like TP believe that god was creating a bunch of other people on the sixth day. So how many people did god "create"?
if you answer is two (adam and eve), then there is an apparent inconsistancy.

In Genesis chapter 1 you have the high level account saying Man was created on the 6th day.
In Genesis Chapter 2 we go back and address everything and provide additional details.

God only created Adam and Eve of which all peoples came from.

The blood lines were pure so they could support inter breeding.
In Leviticus 18:6-18 You see a comand for it to stop!
I believe the other poster, that came up with that theroy, admitted it was just something they thought, not something Christianity teaches.

There are all kinds of things you can find on the web that at first glance they look confussing but with carefuall eximination there is a good answer.

 

[tommyjones]

In Genesis chapter 1 you have the high level account saying Man was created on the 6th day.
In Genesis Chapter 2 we go back and address everything and provide additional details.

God only created Adam and Eve of which all peoples came from.

The blood lines were pure so they could support inter breeding.
In Leviticus 18:6-18 You see a comand for it to stop!
I believe the other poster, that came up with that theroy, admitted it was just something they thought, not something Christianity teaches.

There are all kinds of things you can find on the web that at first glance they look confussing but with carefuall eximination there is a good answer.

I agree that is what i was taught and it is my understanding of the story....

I think that T_P's reading of these passages makes it a contradiction. how can the same person be created on two different days?

he says that his interpretation is that others were created. But he believes that in fact the bible describes two separate events. and that is where his interpretation gets its basis.