Part 39 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis 1 doesn't say that womankind was created in image and likeness of the male creator god.
And the second creation story in Genesis 2 doesn't say that a bloke was created in the image and likeness of a god anyway but was only created from dust (Gen 2:7), and that another genetically identical person was cloned from the bloke's rib tissue (Gen 2:21-23), which is why it took them 130 years to first become pregnant since they couldn't work out which was Arthur and which was Martha (Gen 5:1-3).

 

It does not have to say "Womankind" .. to imply that women were created alongside men.. the term "Mankind" for example .. refers to both women and men.. and we are encouraged to read the text that way given the use of plural terms "Like US - in OUR IMAGE" the US and the OUR not specifying only male .. and upon learning the identities of the "US" and the "OUR" find out indeed that they include both men and women.

You are having serious trouble understanding the "we don't have to quote from genesis at all" to know the answer to the question of women being included in "Mankind" or "Man" .. don't have to quote it at all .. and you going "look a later redactor wrote "Him" in the second version of the story does not help you.

 

WRONG. The bible clearly differentiates between "mankind" and "womankind".

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Which is why the Genesis 1 creation story says that a male person was created in the image and likeness of the male god which the male writer of the story created in his image and likeness, and does not say that a female person was created in the image and likeness of the male creator god, and was presumably created in the image and likeness of one of the goddesses at the meeting of gods described by the male writer. And given that the word "HIM" is not a synonym for the word "HER", just as the word "HE" is not a synonym for the word "SHE", and the words "OUR" and "US" are not synonyms for the word "ME", and the word "HIS" is not a synonym for the words "HER" or "IT'S".
You are simply not understanding the fact that we have the detailed version of the story.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he HIM; male and female created he them.

 

Holy carp this is purile nonsense .. there are times when a word can mean different things .. depending on the Context .. for example "Man" can mean a Man .. or it can mean "Mankind" - Mankind meaning everyone .. and not just bunch of men.

and Leviticus is not the subject of discussion ??? = wonky nonsense. The subject and context of the discussion is the creation of man story in Genesis .. what the people living ~1000-2000BC believed how humans came to be.

OK .. not about what ever the hell leviticus is talking about .. OK .. Right .. one more time " What was the story of an Israelite living in 1000 BC about the creation of humans"

What part of .. We know what these people believed .. and we don't need to know any passages of the Bible to know this .. are you having so much trouble figuring out ? .. So it does not matter what the Bible says .. nor which word is used .. cause we already know the story that Genesis 1-6 is trying to tell .. before readying the book.

and who said US was a synonym for "ME or HIS" you are talking nonsense. "Our - US" is a synonym for the group of Gods that participated in the creation of humans .. which included both Gods and Godesses .. the first humans were created by insemination of 14 annunaki Goddesses - 7 men - 7 women.

 

Yep it sure is. But that 's what the bible says, and that once upon a time a group of gods and goddesses discussed creating a bloke in the image and likeness of the male creator god, and creating a woman in the image and likeness of a goddess. And they all lived happily ever after.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he HIM; male and female created he them.

And another biblical writer said that a god created a person from dust and then cloned a genetically identical person from some rib tissue (Gen 2:21-23) and that it took them 130 years to first become pregnant (Gen 5:1-3).

 

Finally you have come to the realization of what the word "US" meant .. and "Our" .. in holy scripture .. after only 5-10 posts .. congratulations and kudos for getting it .. even if it took awhile !?

That said Brother Mitty .. you are yet in error .. these hybrid workers created to ease the burden of the Gods did not live so happily ever after. One of the Gods became so enraged with these creatures that he decided to wipe them all out in a great flood.. fortunately for US .. another God (Eniki) took pity and decided to save the human race by saving one family .. had them build a boat to escape the wrath of Enlil.

 

Just imaginative fantasies.

 

Your specialty is "imaginative fantasies" ? you should have told us that from the start .. so we know where you are coming from. Yes Brother Mitt .. you can call the religious beliefs of the Sumerians which spread throughout the entire near east -- imaginative fantasies but, this is what they believed about the creation of humans .. both male and female .. 7 male and 7 female in the first go round to be exact..

Quite good imagination those folks had .. but you know what they say .. that in many a myth there is a Kernal of Truth .. and who are you to say otherwise Mr. Imaginative Fantasy : )

 

Again, the mere existence of the bible is contradictory to its claims.

 

Many examples have been given - Do not confuse failure to respond to reality with the existence of reality - Brother Mitt .. Let us not pretend that what has been proven to you does not exist . Instead let our heads bow to the Rod of Correction.

Once again Mitt - you will fail to respond to the contradiction in scripture - knowing position crucified if you do.. that the foundation for belief is built on sand .. but we will remind you of this folly once again ..

A) Do we kill the child for sin of the idolatrous parents ? Or B) Do we not kill the child for the sin of the Father -- let each be punished for his own sin.

Which instruction from the Bible are we to follow Mitt .. in order to be put right with God .. cause we don't want to choose wrong .. and go against "The Will of the Father" . That is the Bible Verse you need to keep top of mind Mitt .. in choosing which Biblical Path you will follow.

You want to follow the Will of the Father do you not Brother Mitt .. profess and in fact teach this will throughout the land ? or have I mistaken which side you speak for ? .. is it the one with forked tongue ?

Choose your Path Brother Mitt .. and make sure you don't contradict . "The Will of the Father" Hallowed be thy name .. which you have professed not to know ..but I would suggest might be useful in choosing the path you wish to follow

how so ?

This is a ridiculous dead horse on which you keep beating .. "US - OUR Image" .. includes women .. I tell you true

 

An all powerful God intending us to know something would not need to resort to ancient scribes and their written words. Such a God could simply have us know whatever he/she/it wants us to know, and only if we understand the message (which we clearly don't, given all the competing interpretations) can we be fairly tested on how we behave based on it. Hence the mere existence of the bible is evidence against its claims.

 

There is no contradiction there -- some other term you are looking for but not a contradiction.

1) even if there was an all powerful God .. that doesn't mean this God would necessarily communicate with you telepathically
2) The Bible does not posit an all powerful god to begin with .. quite the reverse .. it posits anthropomorphic Gods with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics .. Gods who make mistakes .. and so forth.

 

If not the claims of the bible, then claims of mainstream Christianity, which does posit an all powerful God. He is claimed to be all powerful and to want us to know his word and be judged on it. That is inconsistent with written word since written word is prone to being misunderstood.

If an all powerful God wants you to know something, you know it. No need for the theatrics of holy books or prophets. You would just know it.

 

Well that is a completely different topic ... there is a big difference between a contradiction in the Bible .. such as the one I pointed out .. and a contradiction in moronic beliefs about God .. Monotheism being the first if one claims belief in any of the OT Gods.

 

You clearly have a different take on the Bible than mainstream Christians do. I restrict my statement to the God they believe in and the way they see the Bible.
My point does not seem to apply to you. Can you see how it applies to them?

And if we're talking textual contradictions in the bible, there appear to be many. The gospels don't even seem to all agree with one another from what I can see.

 

Christians do not have a consistent take on the Bible .. never mind have the same conception of God. This whole "God is Everything" nonsense is just a default position for those who have never actually thought about the question and so don't know themselves what they about God.

The question of contradictions in the Bible itself is a different matter.. and of these there are too many to count.. one of the best was illustrated in my question to the OP (Mitt) A) Kill the child for the sin of the idolatrous parents B) Do not kill the child for the sin of the Father -each according to his own sin.

The beauty of this contradiction is that it also exposes one of the "Christian" contradictions .. that being Monotheism -- which is why the OP refuses to answer this "Tough Question"

With the covenant comes commands and/or rules .. how one can be put right with this God .. and gain salvation. Different Covenant .. different God .. different set of rules .. So for example when Jesus rejects and disobeys one of these rules .. he is rejecting that God and any covenant with that God .. for example he rejects rules by the God named YHWH .. and he also rejects a different set of 10 commands .. rules/laws by the God named Jealous. Neither of which are who Jesus refers to as "The Father" .. Jesus himself a symbolic representation of "This God's Word" this Gods covenant.

Jesus is the Logos .. emissary between man and God .. whose purpose is to deliver "The Word" .. that Word .. is the Word of God .. and this is the only thing sacred about God .. from a human context .. different "Word" = different God and now we have contradicted "Christian-Muslim-Jewish" belief in Monotheism .. or at least the belief that the God of the Israelites was a Monotheistic God .. ridiculous nonsense .. nothing further from the truth .. the exact opposite is true.

 

I wasn't aware that line B was in the Bible. Line A seems pretty foundational to it and to mainstream Christianity. Adam and Eve, original sin, the need for a Jesus and concept of vicarious redemption, etc. So for sure, line B in a huge contradiction to that.

I like that line B is there. It shows hope for reform and something decent Christians can latch on to. Inherited sin, along with vicarious redemption are probably the top two concepts pushed by Christians that I find unethical.

 

Missed this .. yes .. interesting .. a different set of commands .. for a different God .. .. you can't have a covenant with the same god saying -- "Kill the Child" in one place .. "Do not kill the Child" in the other that is a covenant that breaks itself .. No God is this stupid .. well .. never say never .. but none of the rational Gods would ever do such a thing.

Now .. once realizing that there are good Gods and Bad Gods in the Bible .. one now has the task of figuring out which is which. Jesus does offer a way to simplify the task somewhat by Rejecting the Covenant (and commands/rules/laws) of two of the OT-Gods .. Lord YHWH .. and Lord Jealous. but then what is this new covenant we are to follow .. what commands .. and what is the name of the God of the Covenant we are entering into.

 

Jesus, however, didn't reject the covenants with the biblical gods and said that every jot and tittle of the OT laws still apply till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled (Matt 5:18-25).

 

The bible is a collection of books, so of course it won't all be consistent between them all. And even if some are the true word of god(s) that wouldn't mean they all are.

 

Sorry Mitty .. Jesus rejects the covenant contradicting the commands "Let ye without sin cast the first rock" .. so maybe all of the OT Law applies those who follow the covenant of YHWH -- but does not apply to Jesus .. nor his followers.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Now .. something is wonky here obviously .. as "until everything is accomplished" does not make sense in context with the rest from a "Time" perspective .. u understand !

Second Jesus tells you that he does not speak things plainly .. and ... you have read meaning into the passage that is not there. .. Everything does not disappear from the Law .. OK .. so what .. Jesus doesn't follow the Law LOL The can remain all it likes .. and the cult that follows that covenant .. Jesus is not part of that Cult .. so the book of the Law will not disappear .. but It is non-existent to Jesus .. and this is what needs be accomplished .. the disappearance of the old covenants .. the Law of Lord YHWH .. the Law of Lord Jealous .. Gone .. yet not one letter has disappeared.

but regardless .. no need to navel gaze .. Jesus does not abide by the YHWH Covenant .. which makes sense because YHWH is not the God of Jesus. Jesus abides by the Covenant of the God of Jesus .. "The Father in Heaven .. Hallowed be thy name"

Jesus breaks the Lord YHW's Law .. numerous times .. and trashes the nasty God of the Law as a murderer .. so not one letter has disappeared from the Covenant of Lord YHWH ... but you not need follow... "the Good News" .. .. just not in a Pauline sense... as there is a new Covenant one must follow to be a follower of Jesus .. something completely different from what the Fundamentalists claim however .. this is not "new covenant theology" of the lost fundies .. in any way shape or form .. U understand !
"

 

IOW the bible has many contradictions and inconsistencies and scientific untruths, and is just a book written by men, for men, about men and their patriarchal society and their laws and history and myths and the gods they created in their images and likenesses.
And none of it changes the fact that the writer of Matt 5:18-25 claimed that Jesus said that every jot and tittle of OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass which is when all is fulfilled. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

 

OT - Law applies only to those who follow the God of that Covenant. Jesus doesn't follow that God .. .. he is not bound by that covenant nor its laws.

 

So why did Jesus say that every jot and tittle of the OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled if he didn't believe it, and that anyone who breaks any of the OT law will be the least in heaven, and that anyone who abides by and teaches the OT law will be great in heaven? And which god did Jesus follow if it wasn't the god of the OT law?

 

And Jesus didn't caste the first stone because he said that he wasn't without sin anyway (Mark 10:1.