| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2005 05:43:07 PM · #501 |
Yo, Ron...
1)From Wikipedia: In the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) of Judaism, the speaking Serpent (nachash) in the Garden of Eden brought forbidden knowledge, but was not identified with Satan in the Book of Genesis. Nor is there any indication there in Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in his own right, aside from the fact that the Pentateuch is not otherwise rife with talking animals.
2)You didn't address that Adam and Eve essentially didn't know right from wrong until bestowed with that knowledge through the consumption of one of God's creations at the guidance of another. Nor did you address the implication that our intrepid ancestors named penguins, cassowaries, dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, the dodo bird and of course, dragons. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:03:02 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture does not say that Adam named ALL of the animals on earth; only that he named the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. I believe that, to date, zoologists have recorded around 9,000 bird species and 15,000 mammal species. At any rate, nowhere near the estimate of 2 million that you gave, which must include amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, and other non-bird, non-mammal species. |
Ron, just two quick clarification questions. Why does beast of field only include mammels (does this include whales and dolphins of the ocean?) and who named everything else then? Thanks in advance |
1) While "beasts" is inclusive of animals other than land dwellers, the qualifying words "of the field" limits the scope to only those on land. That excludes the sea-dwelling animals and fishes.
2) First, be aware that in all probablilty the names we know animals by are likely not what Adam named them. That being said, common names, though originally those used by the people who saw them with some regularity, were overriden instead by the names given by the global explorers and conquerers - namely the "civilized" world. Hence, it didn't matter what natives called an elephant - it was called an "elephant" if that's what the "civilized" people determined its name to be. For species known to them, it was the name they knew. For species new to them, it was often an attempt at approximating what the natives called the animal into their own language. For example: When European explorers first saw strange hopping animals in Australia, they asked a native ( aborigine ) what they were called. He replied "kangaroo" meaning "I don't understand" [your question]. The explorers thought this was the animal's name - so the animal was ( and still is ) called a kangaroo.
Their scientific names are most often a combination of their taxonomic classification ( usually genus ) and additional descriptors usually related to the animals unique attributes ( species or sub-species ). |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:22:33 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yo, Ron...
1)From Wikipedia: In the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) of Judaism, the speaking Serpent (nachash) in the Garden of Eden brought forbidden knowledge, but was not identified with Satan in the Book of Genesis. Nor is there any indication there in Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in his own right, aside from the fact that the Pentateuch is not otherwise rife with talking animals. |
Yo, Shannon.
1) The NEW Testament says ( 2 Corinthians 11:3):"
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
The greek word translated serpent is ophis, not nachash. It is used figuratively to mean Satan.
The only other talking animal in the Pentateuch, to the best of my knowledge, was Balaam's donkey ( Numbers 22:28 ).
Originally posted by scalvert:
2)You didn't address that Adam and Eve essentially didn't know right from wrong until bestowed with that knowledge through the consumption of one of God's creations at the guidance of another. |
Sorry, but I must play the "semantic" game again. Knowing Right from wrong and Knowing Good and Evil are not the same. You can be GOOD and wrong. You can be RIGHT and evil. They knew right from wrong.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Nor did you address the implication that our intrepid ancestors named penguins, cassowaries, dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, the dodo bird and of course, dragons. |
According to scripture, Adam would NOT have named flightless birds, only birds of the air; and according to scripture, he WOULD have named dinosaurs, mammoths, and dragons if they were "of the field".
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:22:52 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture does not say that Adam named ALL of the animals on earth; only that he named the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. I believe that, to date, zoologists have recorded around 9,000 bird species and 15,000 mammal species. At any rate, nowhere near the estimate of 2 million that you gave, which must include amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, and other non-bird, non-mammal species. |
Ron, just two quick clarification questions. Why does beast of field only include mammels (does this include whales and dolphins of the ocean?) and who named everything else then? Thanks in advance |
1) While "beasts" is inclusive of animals other than land dwellers, the qualifying words "of the field" limits the scope to only those on land. That excludes the sea-dwelling animals and fishes.
2) First, be aware that in all probablilty the names we know animals by are likely not what Adam named them. That being said, common names, though originally those used by the people who saw them with some regularity, were overriden instead by the names given by the global explorers and conquerers - namely the "civilized" world. Hence, it didn't matter what natives called an elephant - it was called an "elephant" if that's what the "civilized" people determined its name to be. For species known to them, it was the name they knew. For species new to them, it was often an attempt at approximating what the natives called the animal into their own language. For example: When European explorers first saw strange hopping animals in Australia, they asked a native ( aborigine ) what they were called. He replied "kangaroo" meaning "I don't understand" [your question]. The explorers thought this was the animal's name - so the animal was ( and still is ) called a kangaroo.
Their scientific names are most often a combination of their taxonomic classification ( usually genus ) and additional descriptors usually related to the animals unique attributes ( species or sub-species ). |
Ron, I know how animals are named in todays world, I was just asking in terms of what you and scalvert were talking about in Adam naming the animals. You did answer my questions, though, so thank you. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:25:28 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...in all probablilty the names we know animals by are likely not what Adam named them. |
If the first two people spoke the same language, you would assume that their children also spoke the same language and so on. Many of the common animal names we know are rooted in Greek or Latin. If we're all descended from Adam and Eve, why would all the names (or even languages) change over time? Your premise necessitates that Adam's great-great-great-great-great grandson suddenly decided that tribbles should be called hamsters. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:29:55 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Ron, I know how animals are named in todays world, I was just asking in terms of what you and scalvert were talking about in Adam naming the animals. You did answer my questions, though, so thank you. |
If my explanation came across as implying a lack of understanding on your part, I apologize. I couldn't tell from the wording of the question "who named everything else" what your level of knowledge was, so tried to provide an answer without making assumptions.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:35:35 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...in all probablilty the names we know animals by are likely not what Adam named them. |
If the first two people spoke the same language, you would assume that their children also spoke the same language and so on. Many of the common animal names we know are rooted in Greek or Latin. If we're all descended from Adam and Eve, why would all the names (or even languages) change over time? |
Genesis 11:1-9
"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel -- because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
Because God made it so.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Your premise necessitates that Adam's great-great-great-great-great grandson suddenly decided that tribbles should be called hamsters. |
No, it doesn't. The decision wasn't his to make. God made it for him. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:40:59 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...in all probablilty the names we know animals by are likely not what Adam named them. |
If the first two people spoke the same language, you would assume that their children also spoke the same language and so on. Many of the common animal names we know are rooted in Greek or Latin. If we're all descended from Adam and Eve, why would all the names (or even languages) change over time? Your premise necessitates that Adam's great-great-great-great-great grandson suddenly decided that tribbles should be called hamsters. |
OK I've given up trying to get this thread back onto track or toget my questions answerred so I'll just ask a question that link s with the Garden of Eden. ( By the way I find it particularly incredulous that the story of adam & eve is believed by anyone but that is by the by!)
If God made the Earth etc and put Aam & eve in the Garden, what was going on outside the garden while they were busy being tempted by the serpent? (Still think the snake is a phallic symbol!) Was it the same as in the garden? Were there animals out there too? Why was just part of the world made perfect?
Also could someone tell me who were the children of Adam & Eve and surely they must have committed incest to have further children which to me seems equally as sinful as homosexuality ( still trying to keep this thread on its original line if only very tenuously!).
The children and grandchildren of A & E must have been very busy to have populated the EArth to say nothing of being world travellers without the benefits of air miles! Australia must have been a real worry to them!
P
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:44:14 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The greek word translated serpent is ophis, not nachash. It is used figuratively to mean Satan. |
From Bible.org: "ophis, a general term for "serpent," occurs in numerous passages of the New Testament and Septuagint, and is fairly equivalent to nachash. The New Testament has four Greek names... as well as several compound expressions, such as ophis petamenos, "flying serpent," ophis thanaton, "deadly serpent," and ophis daknon, "biting" or "stinging serpent." Notwithstanding this large vocabulary, it is impossible to identify satisfactorily a single species." So much for your rebuttal.
Originally posted by RonB:
Knowing Right from wrong and Knowing Good and Evil are not the same. They knew right from wrong. |
Ooooh... nice dodge. So knowing that they were naked (the immediate consequence) was evil? I trust you're typing these responses unclothed. BTW, it shouldn't have taken a whole lot of persuasion to talk Eve into snack time since she wasn't around yet when God laid the ground rules.
Originally posted by RonB:
he WOULD have named dinosaurs, mammoths, and dragons if they were "of the field". |
Well mammoths certainly weren't "of the deep ocean."
I wonder where all those critters went between being named and the Great Flood that wiped everything out (notwithstanding continuous written records of other civilizations before and after that time). You'd think that animals as imposing as mammoths and giant sloths might merit a mention somewhere along the line. Speaking of which... Noah's first action upon disembarking from the Ark was to sacrifice one of every clean animal (thereby leaving only one to repopulate the earth). Uh oh.
Message edited by author 2005-11-12 19:12:28. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 06:56:34 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by RonB:
"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." |
Ah, so the purpose of inventing French and Cherokee was to prevent people from communicating. Good plan. THAT'LL keep them from building cities!
Originally posted by scalvert:
Your premise necessitates that Adam's great-great-great-great-great grandson suddenly decided that tribbles should be called hamsters. |
Originally posted by RonB:
No, it doesn't. The decision wasn't his to make. God made it for him. |
Oh, so God decided that tribbles should be called hamsters. Thanks for clearing that one up for us. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:00:17 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Short answer: God created the first people free of sin. Eve was tempted by the snake, and she and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and ever since then we've been on our own. When we acquired free will, we picked up as baggage the capacity to sin; we were no longer in a state of innocence.
So, no, God did not "create" homosexuals, or any other form of "sinner" for that matter. He created His children in His own image, and they broke the rules. |
A nice summarization, bear. Not surprisingly, I would suggest two modifications:
1) Eve was tempted by the serpent ( Satan ), not "a snake". I realize that you will think this a "semantic" game - but to believers ( or to ME, if you prefer ), there is an important difference - that from the very beginning, mankind's struggle has been against the powers in the world; not against men or nature.
2) I would also replace the introductory phrase "When we acquired free will..." with "Since we were created with free will...". If Adam & Eve had not had free will from the very beginning, the rest could not have followed.
Note: This modification is needed to counter the speculation of SCalvert that they did not have free will until after they exercised it. I find it amusing that he will believe YOU before he will believe scripture.
On another note of biblical proportions - this one to SCalvert: Scripture does not say that Adam named ALL of the animals on earth; only that he named the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. I believe that, to date, zoologists have recorded around 9,000 bird species and 15,000 mammal species. At any rate, nowhere near the estimate of 2 million that you gave, which must include amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, and other non-bird, non-mammal species.
And finally, the word for "fruit" in the Greek is periy - and the same word is used in the phrase "fruit of the womb" ( meaning child ). It has no specificity. |
Fair enough. "Serpent" for "snake" is a perfectly reasonable semantic distinction; the connotations are much richer. Ditto the fine-tuning of the free-will issue. As I said, it was a gross oversimplification.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:09:10 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Your premise necessitates that Adam's great-great-great-great-great grandson suddenly decided that tribbles should be called hamsters. |
No, it doesn't. The decision wasn't his to make. God made it for him. |
That on-again/off-again free will thing really has me confused now ... and a hamster does a darned good imitation of a tribble if you ask me. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:13:30 PM · #513 |
PLEASE stop ignoring me - I am feeling distinctly out in the cold here!
P
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:20:44 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
PLEASE stop ignoring me - I am feeling distinctly out in the cold here!
P |
Shall I knit you a sweater? : )
I guess Adam didn't have to name penguins because they don't fly nor polar bears because the live on the (shrinking) ice pack. Come to think of it, I don't remember any mention of refrigeration on the Ark .... |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:22:15 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
OK I've given up trying to get this thread back onto track or toget my questions answerred so I'll just ask a question that link s with the Garden of Eden. ( By the way I find it particularly incredulous that the story of adam & eve is believed by anyone but that is by the by!)
If God made the Earth etc and put Aam & eve in the Garden, what was going on outside the garden while they were busy being tempted by the serpent? (Still think the snake is a phallic symbol!) Was it the same as in the garden? Were there animals out there too? Why was just part of the world made perfect? |
I don't know what it was like outside the garden, scripture doesn't say - but I would guess that it was less suitable for naked people given to a light workload, given that the result of sin was being driven from the garden and the burden of "painful toil" to sustain themselves.
Apparently, yes, there were animals out there, given that Adam's son Abel raised sheep.
Scripture doesn't say that Eden was perfect.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Also could someone tell me who were the children of Adam & Eve... |
The first two were Cain and Abel. There were obviously other sons and daughters.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
...and surely they must have committed incest to have further children which to me seems equally as sinful as homosexuality ( still trying to keep this thread on its original line if only very tenuously!). |
While you are technically correct, you must take into account two things:
1) In Genesis there was no prohibition against brothers and sisters marrying and having sexual relations. The societal, and for that matter legal, prohibitions against incest did not occur until the Levitical period - and for good reason:
2) Adam and Eve were genetically perfect. The genetic problems associated with "inbreeding" would thus not have occurred until several generations had passed.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
The children and grandchildren of A & E must have been very busy to have populated the EArth to say nothing of being world travellers without the benefits of air miles! Australia must have been a real worry to them!
P |
Adam lived for over 930 years. He had a son, Seth, when he was 130 years old. Seth lived for 912 years. He ( Seth ) had a son Enosh when he was 105 years old. Enosh lived for 905 years. He ( Enosh ) had a son Kenan when he was 90 years old. etc. etc. It wouldn't take many generations to build up the population. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:25:24 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
PLEASE stop ignoring me - I am feeling distinctly out in the cold here!
P |
Shall I knit you a sweater? : )
I guess Adam didn't have to name penguins because they don't fly nor polar bears because the live on the (shrinking) ice pack. Come to think of it, I don't remember any mention of refrigeration on the Ark .... |
Yes please! Thermal underwear would be good as well! All I want are answers to my questions about the Garden of Eden etc.
Where is RonB when you need him???
P
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:26:24 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Where is RonB when you need him???
P |
Submitting while you are typing slowly : ) |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:31:14 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Also could someone tell me who were the children of Adam & Eve... |
The first two were Cain and Abel. There were obviously other sons and daughters. |
Speaking of incest ...
"My mother was like a sister to me, only we didn't have sex quite so often."
-- Emo Philips
Couldn't resist. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:35:22 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Also could someone tell me who were the children of Adam & Eve... |
The first two were Cain and Abel. Adam lived for over 930 years. He had a son, Seth, when he was 130 years old. Seth lived for 912 years. He (Seth) had a son Enosh when he was 105 years old. Enosh lived for 905 years. He (Enosh) had a son Kenan when he was 90 years old. etc. etc. It wouldn't take many generations to build up the population. |
Hmm...all boys. I wonder who they married? BTW, it's interesting that Cain had to be marked when the world's population could be counted on one hand. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:39:10 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
The greek word translated serpent is ophis, not nachash. It is used figuratively to mean Satan. |
From Bible.org: "ophis, a general term for "serpent," occurs in numerous passages of the New Testament and Septuagint, and is fairly equivalent to nachash. The New Testament has four Greek names... as well as several compound expressions, such as ophis petamenos, "flying serpent," ophis thanaton, "deadly serpent," and ophis daknon, "biting" or "stinging serpent." Notwithstanding this large vocabulary, it is impossible to identify satisfactorily a single species." So much for your rebuttal. |
But, to the best of my knowledge only ONE had the ability to speak.
Originally posted by RonB:
Knowing Right from wrong and Knowing Good and Evil are not the same. They knew right from wrong. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ooooh... nice dodge. So knowing that they were naked (the immediate consequence) was evil? I trust you're typing these responses unclothed. BTW, it shouldn't have taken a whole lot of persuasion to talk Eve into snack time since she wasn't around yet when God laid the ground rules. |
Do you not share information with others? Or do you purposefully keep it to yourself? Especially important issues concerning life & death? And I'm the one who has been called out for using "unresponsive" and "circular" logic.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
he WOULD have named dinosaurs, mammoths, and dragons if they were "of the field". |
Well mammoths certainly weren't "of the deep ocean."
I wonder where all those critters went between being named and the Great Flood that wiped everything out (notwithstanding continuous written records of other civilizations before and after that time). You'd think that animals as imposing as mammoths and giant sloths might merit a mention somewhere along the line. Speaking of which... Noah's first action upon disembarking from the Ark was to sacrifice one of every clean animal (thereby leaving only one to repopulate the earth). Uh oh. |
What makes you think
a) that some species became extinct BEFORE the flood?
b) that EVERY animal on the ark was mentioned in scripture?
c) animals were unable to reproduce while ON the ark? It was just shy of a year from the time that they entered the ark until they left.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:43:45 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Also could someone tell me who were the children of Adam & Eve... |
The first two were Cain and Abel. Adam lived for over 930 years. He had a son, Seth, when he was 130 years old. Seth lived for 912 years. He (Seth) had a son Enosh when he was 105 years old. Enosh lived for 905 years. He (Enosh) had a son Kenan when he was 90 years old. etc. etc. It wouldn't take many generations to build up the population. |
Hmm...all boys. I wonder who they married? BTW, it's interesting that Cain had to be marked when the world's population could be counted on one hand. |
You never cease to show your ignorance. I continue to ask myself why I bother responding - then realize that by not responding I permit you to mislead others. Oh, well.
1) There were females as well. Genesis 5:4 says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Genesis 5:7 says "And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters.
etc. etc.
DAUGHTERS implies FEMALES.
2) Cain was marked because several hundred years later the world's population could NOT be counted on one hand. And the chance was that one of his cousins thrice removed would not know who he was, apart from the mark, and might erroneously kill him.
Message edited by author 2005-11-12 19:49:34. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:49:22 PM · #522 |
Haven't you discovered that there is no relationship between the "literal" and the "subjective" other than that which serves the greater purpose in your particular argument yet?...
The rational person would assume that you (regardless of "who you are" - and by that I mean pro OR con in this argument) couldn't make a valid argument using literal and subjective quotations "optionally". Therefore you either take the Bible wholly as it as stated literally in whatever form or translation you choose to accept, or you accept the subject lessons that each story contained in the Bible attempts to convey. One leaves you with slavery, women as property and with no rights, gays and all other sinners going to Hell (which doesn't leave too many people I might add), and the other portrays a forgiving God that preaches love, forgiveness, understanding, humanity, and a place in Heaven for those trying to live their lives by the teachings of Jesus, regardless of their predaliction of life.
I personally don't see this argument as being much different than that being put forth by those debating the gay marriage proposal. After all, it's all about sinners (which we all are by all accounts) and what exactly the literal translations of the Bible say, right?
Message edited by author 2005-11-12 19:52:24. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:51:02 PM · #523 |
| What did they eat on the Ark? Feeding the carivores must've been tricky without a warehouse full of Alpo. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 07:55:52 PM · #524 |
OK RonB Thanks for the opinion.
Another question.
We know the size of the ark from the scriptures. How did 2 of every species get on there? And had the room to reproduce? And the population started again then? Incest and world travel repeated? How long did Noah and sons/wives live?
P
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 08:04:40 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What did they eat on the Ark? Feeding the carivores must've been tricky without a warehouse full of Alpo. |
a) Vegatation that was brought with them. E.g. Hay.
b) There were no carnivores on the Ark. All animals up until that time were Herbivores. Those that became carnivores did so AFTER the flood.
Genesis 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
|
|
