all good in the swamp ma'am

I think I need stronger glasses, I keep seeing the title of the thread as 'the History camel'...

I saw The Weeping Camel on dvd...but didn't see the History Camel..

You too!

I thought it was just me.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is creation from God's perspective.
Genesis 2:4-2:25 is creation from Adam's perspective.

Any television show about the Garden of Eden, created by producers who didn't know that, wouldn't be worth watching, in my opinion.

So Spider are you saying that Adam wrote the second Chapter of Genesis?

What the show said that the story of Genesis was edited. And that's why there are inconsistancies. According to the show the first wife of Adam the one that God made at the same time was name Lilith but Lilith being far more independant than Adam's second wife, Eve, she left Adam and the Garden of Eden. Then God created Eve from Adam. In fact that where we get Lilith Fair, a concert for independent women.

Fitnessfanatic,

The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. Moses was inspired by God to know the thoughts of others and to know details about events that happened before he was born. It was through the Holy Spirit that God allowed Moses to know Adam's thoughts about creation. There is a very important lesson to be learned between those two chapters about man and our limited view of reality.

Spider could it be possible the Moses plagerize from many stories common in that area because the Epic of Gilamesh is suprising simimalar to the Adam and Eve casting out from garden of Eden.

Also if you check you Bible the of two trees in the garden; the Tree of Knowledge and the tree of life. The Tree of Life is mentioned once: 3:24 He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Now there is no previous mentioning of tree of Life so this suggest that this part has been edited when the Bible was first written. This would also suggest that the Book of Genesis is plagerize from different cultures back then.

genisis is explained in chapter 2. The chapter seperating each other has been done by man and in doing so stops the thought of what is happening. Gen 1 is a brief history of the beginnings of earth.

Notice man was not made yet at this point describing the beginning.

Gen 2:4-5

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Yahweh Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground
NKJV
No man to till the earth. and this is the history of the heavens and the earth. Also this is the first place the name was inspired to be used Yahweh. Woman was taken from man. Thier is a gross mistranslation of where woman came from. The word translated here is Tesla. Almost always this word is not translate rib but chamber. This is why Yahweh had to close Adam up. This is also why when man and woman come together they become 1. Just as adam was in the garden. We are also told by our messiah that in heaven thier is no marraige or given in marraige but we will be like the angels. No angel mentioned in the bible is of the femine. Because the man and wife has truely come back to being 1. Thier is no contravercy... Blessings.. Miles

Also Spider if Moses wrote the first five Books of the Bible then it is man and not God who wrote the Bible. Even if man was inspired by God to write the Bible the folly is how can man interperate that inspiration and not put man's views in the writing?

Miles the word female in used, in lines 1:27 God created man in the image of himself, in the imange of God he created him, male and female he created them.

Them as in plural suggesting that the first man and first woman, excuse me female, because woman is from man according to the Bible that I'm quoting, were in fact created at the same time.

you are still in the brief history given until Gen 2;4..After thie is a more detailed account of what happened.. Shalom.. Miles

There are also a demonfacation of women and snakes in the Book of Genesis. Before Genesis and perhap before the Hebrew Bible there was a female fertility god that created the earth. This god was a giant snake. The god had to me female because females were consider god-like because they brought new life into the world. To this god there were to be made male sarcarfices to ensure a good crop and also women's fertity in have childern. The queen was in power and the king was selected and killed annually in order to satisfy the god. Of course this could go on forever and the religion changed. They demonize not only the snake but also women to set their place in the religious order.

In Genesis the snake is the one who tempted Eve, and Eve is the cause of the casting out of Eden.

Quote:
3:14 Then Yahweh God said to the snake, 'Because you have done this, Accursed be you of all animals wild and tame! On your belly you will go and on the dust you will feed as long as you live.

3:16 To the woman he said: I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you give birth to you children in pain. Your yearing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.

If you are going to quote from the bible most americans and others have on thier coffee tables, then don't use some story from another religion to prove your point. It can not work.... Miles

Miles, I have to disagree with you on your comment about using two different religions regarding any religious discussion. Paganism shows up a lot in the Bible. Granted it is portrayed as the work of or as "satan" himself in most cases. Without the prior religion and some basis of understanding of it, how could a "new" religion possibly be explained and people made to understand how much "better or greater" it is than the old.

Without the old religions, God would have had no reason to have commanded "You will place no other God before me" would he?

Shalom DKW

The command that is written at that time is far from the beginning. Even though i believe all his commands have always been. At the time the Israelites had come out of Egypt questioning all the way going so far as to make a Golden Calf and claim it as Yahweh. No one except caleb and Joshua from that generation went into the promose land because of thier idol worship. Making a thing something of worship. Yahweh is spirit and should be worshipped in spirit and truth. All that we see is from his creating.Different religions through out the scriptures or idols are condemned for our example as to how he tells us what pleases him in worship. So in Yahweh's own commands/words he tells us to come out of her my people so you do not get the same condemnation and wrath as they will. So to bring in anything except the scriptures from Yahweh's spirit has given is to go backwards to the wilderness wanting what our former life had. Take Care May Yahweh's Blessings Be Upon Your House.... Miles

I'm sorry, Miles, again I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Jesus brought a whole new interpretation to the word of God than that followed previously. How many times was he accused of being a blasphemer? What I do agree with you is the word of God is not what changes - the understanding of humanity: that changes.

I also believe this very word of God was given to several different style messengers to reach several different levels and ways of understanding. This is why I must disagree the biblical scriptures are the only way to God.

Well i guess we do disagree. That's fine. Yahshua did not bring anything new. He said that he brought nothing new except for what was since the beginning. He was a perfect sacrificial lamb to take the sins of the world upon him because he did exactly as his father had commanded to all the Israelites as his father told him. He did not take away the law by no means. What he did was take away the curse of the law to all who would believe.So those who refuse to keep the law actually refuse Yahshua and then they have no more sacrafice but to be judged under the law. Take Care... Miles

You take care too,

Wench

Hi all,
I'm so disappointed I missed this show. I really enjoy these kinds of show. Attempting to use current and past Archeological findings, in conjunction with a variety of hitorical writings, has always proven to be a tell, as far as the historical accuracy of the Bible. Usig these comparison measures we can really begin to see and better understand the world, both socially and geographically, of the times in which these Bible stories took place and were eventually written in.

Anyway, I wanted to address what Miles and DKW were conversing about.

Miles said:
""If you are going to quote from the bible most americans and others have on thier coffee tables, then don't use some story from another religion to prove your point. It can not work.... Miles""

In a couple very recent forum discussions (not here)I put forth several Bible verses and how a couple of scholars interpretted them. Then I asked, why this interpreteation would not coincide with thier beliefs. It was ablsolutely amazing to see the frenzy this caused. It seemed,to many, that the biggest issue lay in the fact that these scholars used the origianal King James Version to base their interpretation on.

After much irritation, to my surprise, very few even accept the KJV as a "real" interpretation, preferring instead to use more currently written Bibles. Of course, I'm sure if this had been a conversation in person, I would have been seriously abused, as I could not stop laughing over this concept.

The point I'm making, is that "the Bible that most Americans have on their coffee table", apparently takes the form of many different versions. I might add that there is also an idea that not all versions are equal, adequate nor even reliable.

Further, its seems, that those who have been taught a specific doctrine, will maintain that this doctrine is derived directly from the Bible, but only if it's the XXVersion of said document. All these versions, all these doctrines, all these opinions, all these divisions of one religion, just since the evelution of the printing press. I can't even fathon, what might have transpired to transfigure these writings before the advent of the printing press.

Oh, I forgot to add this part.

the quote was:
"If you are going to quote from the bible most americans and others have on thier coffee tables, then don't use some story from another religion to prove your point. It can not work.... Miles"

While you are opposed to the idea of another religion being used to prove a point, it be enlightening to try to find - from what anchient religions the Bible, itself has taken ideas from.

When it becomes apparent that many of the ideas, even the stories, included in the Bible, can be identified with much older, pagan and multi-god/goddess religions, then does comparison with other religions, become a worthy advesary.

Indeed, we 'must' and should use other religions when discussing the Bible. Without such comparisons, the blind can be taught to believe and follow anything, consider the newly freed slaves of the United States. Most could not read or write, most. For them, the imposed Christian faith of their masters, became a faith of choice. Without the ability to read or write, or even the very basic ideas of history at that time, they believed what they were taught. They also incorporated some of their own, religious beliefs. Many of these have been handed for all these generations. AND STILL TODAY, there are those who follow pagan rites and rituals of that past association, and believe them to be scriptually sound.

Are they wrong? Those whose faith is strong, but where knowledge lacks. Is their eternal salvation in peril because they have followed "the word" of past loved ones, over taking many years to study for themselves? Were not the stories of the Bible mere words for thousands of years? And when finally written, were not 'the people' illiterate and did they not believe as they were 'told'. And would they not pass down this word, adjusting it from time to time, to meet or merge with some common belief at that time?

And the big question. Where is the Holy Spirit? Why in these last few hundred years, have the faithful, not been been contacted by the Holy Spirit and the error of their ways corrected? How could ONE belief system degrade to many? So if there so many who maintain that the Holy Spirit does in fact speak to them, and bids them to adhere to the scripture as they have been taught, and if there dramatic and contradicting interpretation, than how can any of them be believed?

The Bible is reference material, a reference to history, it does not inspire faith and faith needs nothing to substantiate it. It is only beliefs that come into conflice with the civil order of society that are called upon for substantiation. To use the Bible alone, for such substantiation, whichever, version one wishes to use, makes for a bad argument. It does, however, create some good rhetoric, when met with an open mind.

I do love these converstaions. Missed you all too, but I've become a slave to homework. I stop for breaks occasionally to see how you are all doing. I just couldn't resist addressing this topic.

HUGS all around - red