I'm reading the KJV of Genesis and am amazed by how amoral most of the characters are, including God. The only other book that comes to mind as I read it is The Odyssey. Most of the characters seem to be rewarded for being sly and clever rather than being good. Cain gets his mark, but anyone who kills him is cursed. Abraham deceives Pharaoh and Jacob deceives Esau. Are there any "good guys" in Genesis? The book seems mostly to be about self-preservation rather than good vs. evil. Am I reading Genesis the wrong way by looking for some sort of moral teaching in it?
Genesis / Old Testament General Thread
>applying modern morals to ancient people
Yes, you are reading it wrong.
Abraham decives Pharaoh?
>>987683
>implying
>>987698
Yeah, he gives Pharaoh his wife Sarah, claiming she was just his sister. Then God starts plaguing Egypt to punish Pharaoh even though Pharaoh did not know he was stealing Abraham's wife.
>>987680
It means deceiving and all that amoral stuff is fine if you are backed by the local desert war god.
>>987680
You're right about the people, and wrong about God.
>>987698
He claims Sarah is his sister instead of his wife.
>>987703
He doesn't give her to him though you daft fool. Did you even go so far as to skim 12:11-13?
>And it was, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife "Behold now, I know that you are a beautiful woman to look upon"
>And it will come to pass, that when the Egyptians see you, they will say 'This is his wife' and they will kill me, but you they will keep alive
>So please, say that you are my sister, and it will be well with me for your sake, and that my soul will live because of you.
And then the successive verses put all of the verbs in the Egyptians, not of Abram. She was abducted, she wasn't given.
>>987703
And God gave Pharaoh limp dick, so there's that.
I'm not sure why you're surprised that the bible depicts people as we actually are, warts and all. We say only God is good, and all people depraved, after all.
>>987728
>wrong about God.
How?
>>987730
Sarah is his half-sister.
>>987735
God is the objective basis for morality, so whatever God does cannot be immoral, or God would cease being God.
God has rights we don't have; God had the right to forgive Cain, and protect him from his family. But don't think Cain made it into heaven; his line is evil.
>>987744
Oh, you're just a dogmatic zealot, never mind.
>>987751
Yes, I can tell you the truth. As you have not developed a hunger for the truth, most of what I say is incomprehensible to you.
What is the objective basis for your own personal morality?
>>987752
Is that first part a quote?
>>987744
>his line is evil
Why?
>>987680
That one is the demiurge.
>>987683
What's wrong with applying modern morals to ancient people? Killing and enslavement are always wrong regardless of the time period.
>>987744
Someone hasn't read Exodus. Ooops. Why don't you try looking at the golden calf and the aftermath.
>>987780
[citation needed]
>>987744
I agree with some of this guy, the line of Cain being evil is somewhat perturbing since I believe Bibically speaking, we must all be in the line of Cain, and I also believe this is good thing, but I'm that part of my understanding is tangential to what I want to address for OP.
I do think its very presumptuous of you to read Gensis like its some sort of fable to be judged like a piece of artistic fiction. The Scripture is the account given for a RELIGION. TO apply alien standards against the RELIGION, until you have comprehensively deciphered the internal dynamics of value the RELIGION contains, is just disengenious and intellectually feeble to the point where I can only think you must know this is a dishonest way to inquire as to the substance of system of thinking.
To answer your question: you should be reading any part of the bible in the context of wanting to discover: "What doctrine is being explained". The doctrine the bible contains is obviously very controversial, I believe my understanding is exceptionally advanced and looks nothing like what other 'so-called' Christians believe. Obviously my distinction of who is a 'so-called' Christian is not a universally agreed upon label, but I am not bothered, because it conforms to the doctrine which I think is plainly included in Scripture.
>>987801
If you believe the biblical narrative, we're all descended from Seth through Noah, none of either Cain's nor Abel's (if there are any) issue survive.
>>987680
Praying to the right God makes them good people. Their succes in life (through trickery or otherwise) is proof that they are praying to the right God and God is rewarding them.
The Old Testament is basicly
>the winner wins so he deserves to win
>>987772
The bible mentions "the way of Cain" as an evil to avoid.
You're probably doing it right now.
>>987787
Your statement is incorrect, meaningless, and pointless.
>>987801
>we must all be in the line of Cain
There's also the line of Seth, and then there's lines that were produced when Adam and Eve had dozens more children.
>>987734
I never said I was surprised by how people are depicted in the Bible. I haven't read it since I was a child so I was amazed by how repugnant most of the famous characters are, including God Himself. They sound like a bunch of crooked hillbillies.
>>987780
No, it really isn't.
I bet you're a Bernie loving liberal with that kind of logic.
>>987801
Every man should be convinced in his heart that what he believes is true.
>>987801
cont..
Most of the time you will never "hear" what you reading further than the level of your current mood of intelligence. If you are finding petty contentious minutia to distract you from finding useful messages, you are probably too immature to gain knowledge without having some of the stupidity in your spiritual understanding redressed to the point where you can effectively "seek" productively.
>>987817
Even if we are all descended from Seth, its quite possible. We are still definitely all still descended from Cain. If you fully consult the genealogies in Scripture, I think you find this is easily confirmed. But in any case, this sort of "evil" labeling, is very farm from principled doctrine in my understanding.
>>987813
Namaah was of the line of Cain; the line of Cain endured the flood.
>>987683
I've also never quite understand why its common on 4chan to post this point of view.
please explain why modern morals cant be applied to the past.
>>987838
Further up even
>>987683
What are the ancient morals, then? Be Machiavellian? That seems to be the moral of Genesis, according to OP. Would you agree?
>>987831
The open truthfulness of the scriptures in openly portraying men at their heights and at their depths is another mark for its veracity.
>>987839
It's the mindset of the evolutionist that humanity has become of a higher and higher order from our ancestors.
>>987845
The bible says there's nothing new under the sun; people were being Machiavellian thousands of years before the man sucked teat.
>>987819
But what does that say about hisblood line?
>>987845
OP here. Machiavellian is close to where I am getting at. What I mean is, a lot of the characters seem to lack the basic morals you find in the Ten Commandments, which obviously comes later. God "curses" Cain with the mark, but he also protects him and his people.
Also, did anyone else find the mass circumcision scene freaky? That's where I left off before falling asleep.
>>987845
I am not the way who spoke about Ancient morality. But I agree a little with the core of the sentiment of the distinction against our modern position: only because modern morality is repugnant in my opinion.
Who said we have solved any depth of moral mystery? This idea that our modern method's of adjucication are superior is very misguided and mostly due to vulgar view that everything because its had more time to make its "evolution" stronger. The state of modern morality is weak, and although superficially touted by the vast proganda machinary of relatavistic-exceptionalism that is a new mothers milk of our age: doesnt mean you get to blindly critize something as being repugnant before you have even shown yourself capabale of laying out the better alternative.
Implying something is backward when you can't define what should be taken as morally progressive, is a prime example of why the authentic morality (which the ancients were much better at identifying with), has been drifted so far from the befuddled mass of blind stupidity that masqueraudes as: (quote from scripture below):
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
>>987833
Thinking murder and slavery are wrong makes me a Bernie loving liberal? Are you sure it isn't just being a decent person? I think it's time you went back to your containment board.
>>987825
It is correct, and Exodus 32:9-14 proves that God does not set what is objectively moral by being whatever God happens to be doing.
It is quite on point, given that you say the opposite. You might want to actually read the Bible before you go about saying what's in it.
>>987813
This is patently wrong:
Lamech was a descendant of Cain, and a forefather of Noah. Did a minister feed you some simplistic "narrative"?
>>987863
It's more about trying to do things Cain's way, trying to work your way into heaven. Eve taught Cain that he was the messiah, and Cain believed it, and tried very hard to be just that. He failed. And instead of repenting and doing things God's way, he killed his brother, who was.
>>987751
He is right. I'm not a believer, but has the book of Job explains whatever God does is good, and if you don't see that way is you mortal being ignorance at work, fueled by your hubris.
>>987864
Helluva thing to feed your dreams with.
>>987864
Oh, and Jacob's name literally means something like "Trickster" before it's changed to Israel, so yeah. Fighting men and God indeed.
>>987897
What verses say that?
>>987889
It is patently absurd, as you have no idea whether or not I have read Exodus. I know that I have, many times, and I am not blinded by YHWH as you are into incomprehension.
God told Moses that He would start over with Moses, and make Moses into a new Abraham. Moses declined because he loved his people, and did not want the name of the Lord to be sullied.
That you think Moses talked God, Who sees the end from the beginning, out of doing what God wanted says that your concept of God is infantile.
>>987907
Why do you want to know? Honestly, I get a little tired of being Steppinfetchit.
>>987680
>Abraham deceives Pharaoh
why is deceiving someone who enslaved your people a bad thing
>>987744
so god is above morals? morals are the arbitrary will of god?
>>987921
This is 430 years prior to that.
>>987897
>>987819
Acorrding to my understanding of doctrine, and this is something that has much vastly implicastions about how to understand the whole first 3 chapters of Gensis: the way of Cain is his kind of understanding, which is essentially vanity. Not vanity in the modern use of the word, look specfically at the Scriptural definition of vanity.
Your explaination about Cain and Eve... sounds like some kind of fringe stuff, you part of some kindof Masonic group-fest?
Anyway... it scares me how little spiritual knowledge gets applied to understanding such fundamental parts of Scripture, it makes me worried that the vast majority of Churches are just mythology factories for their version of pagan sky father with their special narrative that makes him fill that role better to those 'worshipers'.
>>987923
God is the objective basis for morality. What God says is good, is good. What God says is evil, is evil. And then He enforces that by rewarding good, and punishing evil.
What God says is blinded, is blinded.
>>987905
OP here. This meaning for Jacob's name has helped made up my mind about this book. Genesis is about tricksters. No wonder I connected it with the Odyssey. Well, clearly the reason why this book seems so foreign is because Jesus did not preach this message. The days between Abraham and Jesus are many.
>>987920
Because i have read thise verses and never found anything like that, just that her child is from god which can mean anythi g.
>>987927
No, you just have to put some thoughts together.
You're Eve. You have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It's your fault. But God told you that your seed would redeem you, and allow you entrance back into the Garden.
The same God told Adam that he was cursed to work the fields by the sweat of his brow to get his food.
So Cain, whose name means "Here he is!", and about whom Eve said "I have born a man, who is the Lord!" is raised to believe that he is the messiah; that he will work the curse put on his father, and get his family back into Eden.
That doesn't work, and Eve has to suffer another painful childbirth, naming her child Abel, or "It's all for nothing". Meaning that her first son, her first childbirth, the son she thought would save them, failed.
The puzzle pieces are there. Whether you can assemble them is up to you. The key is to put yourself into Eve's shoes, and figure out what Eve said, and what Eve named her children, and what Eve's motivation would be to redeem herself, and place her family back into the security of God's garden.
>>987927
Vanity has nothing to do with Cain, so you might want to dismount before you hurt yourself.
>>987934
Yup.
And Abraham and Jesus were friends.
>>987773
what type of gnostic are you?
>>987952
Your responses read a little too deeply into Genesis. I don't think the Jews who wrote Genesis in Babylon had such deep intentions. Yours Truly, OP
>>987955
I'm not gonna bother finishing reading all of this, I think your very superficial deductions on what psychology of the events for all those involved is far off the mark: also you dont see deep enough. Cain's issues are all his own, and they are vastly complex enough without some weird mother influence about what she is might have 'made him think'.
>>987969
Genesis penned in 1446 BC; Babylonian captivity 600 BCish.
Nope.
>>987976
>Cain's issues are all his own
Cain's issues came from his mother. While you are an intelligent human being, the things of God require revelation to understand, not IQ points.
What I told you is true.
>>987962
I dont think you know what the fuck vanity even means, so yeah, your critique is meaningless, but the level of intelligence in this thread is low enough that I'm gonna bow out now, continue your paltry shitfest. Good luck with the pursuit of your 'doctrine'.
>>987979
Wasn't the old testament written first with the babylonian capitivy?
>>987683
Its different when its about the largest religion on earth.
>>987991
I think you enjoy being wrong. Otherwise, I cannot explain your behavior.
Strong's Concordance
shav: emptiness, vanity
Original Word: שָׁוְא
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shav
Phonetic Spelling: (shawv)
Short Definition: vain
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
emptiness, vanity
NASB Translation
deceit (2), deceitful (1), deception (1), emptiness (2), empty (1), false (9), false visions (4), falsehood (7), lies (1), vain (18), vanity (3), worthless (4).
>>987992
No, the talmud was. The talmud is the Jew's way of having rules for things not in the law, but that had to be reconciled with the law. Jews love them some rules.
>>987994
I hope you're kidding me with the "some liberal scholars think" line.
>>987995
And people actually want to use paws from that time ((like levictus))
>>987891
Go re-read Genesis 5, you're mixing up your Lamechs. Noah's father is Methusaleh's son, which puts him firmly in Seth's line, not Cain's
>>988014
>your
Hmmm, maybe not that intelligent after all. Sperging out on a thread about Moses, and applying "vanity" to Cain.
>>987801
>I believe my understanding is exceptionally advanced
1. you perception of yourself is irrelevant to your explanation of christianity.
2. you come off like a huge douche bag
3. some one who is certain that they always right or "advanced" always seem naive
>>988040
I call it the Doctor Curse. Doctors tend to think their expertise applies to all fields, but look completely inane out of their own element.
>>987849
do you saying the evolutionist is wrong? are you saying evolution doesnt exist?
>>988027
Use laws*
>>987955
"I have born a man, who is the Lord!"
This is a fabrication, this is not in Scripture.
>>988050
She said this
>I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Though if that means she thought he was the messia i guess any christian who thanks god for getting food from him thinks their food is the messiah.
>>988047
I'm saying that the worldview of the evolutionist is false.
>>988040
I say those things to give my wording the proper context, also because I want it known that I am independent of organised religion. But in anycase, your response is the biggest example of inane douchegary I recognise on this thread. Please consult the attached image for future reference, it would be nice if we could starts to elevate the standards of discourse, and not just in some feeble superficial sense of style that you are trying to shill onto me.
>>987849
No it isn't.
Many nay think so, but there's at least a few that think we have detoriated biologically. Morals as a social construct don't even got anything to do with evolutionist scientists.
>>988017
Im not gonna answer your accusations and help you out by comprehensively refuting you by engaging in an argument. I have stated enough on this point, I see no reason to pursue it further without a proper invitation to do so, go die in a fire for all I care.
>>988059
The translation is properly "I have gotten a man who is the YHWH."
>>988075
It's pretty obvious to the saved that you're lost.
It's just not obvious why.
>>988089
The worldview of the evolutionist has no objective basis for morality whatsoever.
>>988103
I accept your total and unconditional surrender.
>>988130
So KJV is wrong?
>>988144
What do you mean by "wrong"?
“I have acquired a man from the LORD.”
LORD in the KJV is YHWH; Lord is Adonai. If you get a man from YHWH, that man must be YHWH.
YHWH cannot beget anything but YHWH.
are you reading it in japanese ?
>>988153
Why couldnt itjust mean shethanked god and thought it was thanks to him she got it? Like "i got my food from god"?
>>988166
Because kind begets kind. Cats give birth to kittens. Dogs give birth to puppies. God gives birth to God.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”
When Eve heard that, she personalized it, and thought it was her seed. It wasn't. It was Mary's. But Eve had no way of knowing that, and we only have hindsight.
>>988179
wait a second, how can you be so sure that is talking about Mary? there's no indicators in the passage to say that God is switching subject to people far in the future
>>988179
When did eve say ahe gave bird to god? She said the child was given to her by the lord, which may again just mean he made the pregancy succesfull.
And how do you know eve perzonalized it?
>>988144
Of course KJV is wrong. It mistranslates Genesis's first verse, and Mark's second.
>>988135
>>988139
I am certainly not part of any group you could consider "saved".
My explanation as to why:
I do not confuse being like a child, with being childish, and continuing to engage with those under such confusion is utterly fruitless. I will leave you too go on under the auspices of your spineless 'rebukes' unattended by a further cause for reveling. Good luck.
>>988203
So in which propper bible will i find a verse where she says "he is gods son"?
All religion is a tool for the less ignorant to control the more ignorant and Christianity is no exception
>>988217
None of them. But the KJV is also a shit translation. Oxford Study Bible is what I would recommend.
Also, in the future, don't respond to the Jack Chick poster. Just report and hope he gets a long ban this time.
>>987683
I agree normally
But if that's true then you can't apply ancient morals to modern people
>>988220
Nonsense. Christianity is definitely an exception. It's a tool of the more ignorant to control those less ignorant but less sure of themselves. Look at this thread, the loudest and most aggressive poster is also the one that knows the least.
>>988195
Jesus is the Seed of Abraham, and the son of Mary. The promised Messiah in Genesis 4 is Jesus. Jesus crushed the devil's skull at Golgatha, while the devil bruised His heel.
>>988196
Because she named her first born son, her seed, "Here he is!" and said "I have received a son who is the LORD!"
>>988203
The KJV never is intended to be a literal translation, so no, it's not "wrong". And the first few verses of the bible in the KJV and in the Hebrew say the same story.
Jews.
Not even once.
>>988208
I'm not sure why you felt the need to confirm what I demonstrated I already know.
You know there's an IQ, and an EQ, emotional quotient; there's also a SQ, a spiritual quotient. And no excess in your IQ slops over into an SQ. Right now, because you are dead, your SQ is zero.
Humble yourself and learn something. You're Anon. Nobody knows who you are.
>>988225
I've never posted any image, and I've never been banned.
The truth just sounds the same from whatever source. And you hate the truth, and want the truth to go away.
>>988217
It's in the Hebrew, with an understanding of nature. For instance, when Jesus said to the Jews that He is the Son of God, they instantly picked up rocks to kill Him.
Because claiming to be the Son of God means you are claiming to be God, as God can only beget God.
>>988243
If you mean "they say the same general story" then yes, they do. If they actually line up the words correctly, then no they don't, and they miss out on an enormous amount of nuance.
You may as well say that Hamlet and the Lion King are the same story because they're both about how a usurping uncle kills the prince's father and are in turn killed in a vengeance quest.
>>988239
Source?
These guys claim it means "spear from the rot"
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Cain.html#.VxE1dMpvnqA
And no, she do not say that, she says "from the lord"
>>988261
And?
There's a difference between saying "from god" and "of god"
>>988262
There is more depth and more flavor in the original Hebrew and Greek of the bible, but to say a translation is "wrong" and then admit it is "not as nuanced as the original" is deceptive.
>>988268
The name Cain, in Hebrew kayin, is said to have been given by Eve because she declared: “I have gotten [kaniti, from kanah, ‘to acquire’] a man from the Lord.”
Means "acquired" in Hebrew.
>>988272
Not if you're bearing His child.
>>988268
I found your source, and it's simply false.
Abel has no posterity. Cain's posterity never makes it past the flood of Noah. All humans alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve's son number three, named Seth.
These things are false. Adam and Eve are said to have 33 sons and 23 daughters.
>>988268
Also from your source; maybe you quoted the wrong portion:
In a small minority of instances this verb may mean to create: Psalm 139:13, Deuteronomy 32:6, Genesis 14:19). Our verb is also the one exclaimed by Eve when she says, "I have gotten/made a man-child with the Lord," after giving birth to Cain (Genesis 4:1).
The derivatives of this root are:
The masculine noun קנין (qinyan), meaning item acquired (Leviticus 22:11) or created, i.e. creatures (Psalm 104:23).
>>988274
Except that it does indeed say things that are simply wrong. KJV's first sentence of
>In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth
Is only valid if you just pretend that the double אֵת isn't in the Hebrew text. It is, quite simply, not what the Hebrew says. Therefore, it is wrong, in addition to its stylistic problems.
>>988294
It's not wrong at all.
KJV
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Young's Literal
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
Gods tend to be more cruel among tribal people because they spend more time experiencing amoral nature
>all this bickering over what is clearly Eve being in awe of the first human birth ever
All new life is a gift from the Lord, but this was the first one to go through the "consensual sex in the missionary position with the lights off for the sole purpose of procreation" process.
If it's true that cain thinks he is gods son as ewe raised him so, shouldn't that be directly mentioned in the bible? I mean, he is basically a false prophet.
>>988317
How long would God have to follow you around to note that you broke one of His 613 Commandments?
>>988308
>Implying that quoting another bad translation fixes the first bad translation.
Go look up the actual Hebrew. First verse
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
In either translation, how come neither אֵת is addressed at all? Do you think they just put that in for no reason? This is the very first sentence, and neither one gets that right.
Part of it is that they're straitjacketed into a paragraph-verse system that didn't exist in the original compilation, which means that they try to make sentences which aren't in the original Hebrew; Gen 1:1 is a fragment of an original sentence.
>>988351
Yes, hence the admonition not to be in the "Way of Cain".
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
>>988361
I do hope you've seen those threads that describe posters here.
You're the "guy who gives you a Hebrew lesson when you don't want it".
>>988363
Does that mean he is a false prophet though? It can't just mean he is jealous or greedy and they took after that?
>>988389
Yes. An antichrist, actually. The first antichrist.
>>988370
>How is the translation wrong?
>Explain how it's wrong
>I didn't want a Hebrew lesson.
If you don't want it, don't ask.
>>987683
>applying modern morals to ancient ficitonal people
Fixed that for ya
>>988394
And how does anyone become an antichrist just because he sin?
>>988361
I just looked it up.
>>987699
>>987780
>>987839
>>987845
>>987995
>>988226
>>988400
Holy shit I decide to check this board out of curiosity and it's full of lobotomized reddit faggots.
You can't apply modern morals to ancient times because of the cultural climate of the period - The individualism you are trying to apply to the characters in the Bible is more or less a result of The Enlightenment and every other philosophical movement that branched out of it. It's retarded because the people you are criticizing simply couldn't understand our way of life.
Now please go kill yourselves.
I want to highlight this especially retarded post:
>>988226
What are the fucking logical processes that led you to the conclusion that "If we can't apply the morals of now to the past, we can't apply the morals of the past to the present"
Time isn't a two way street you fucktard.
>>988405
A false messiah is an antichrist; Cain thought he was the messiah because he was raised to believe he was the messiah. He did what he thought was necessary, clear ground and grow crops by the sweat of his brow, and that his offering would appease God, and his family could re-enter the Garden of Eden.
And while Cain is the first antichrist, Abel is the first prophet.
>>988406
I have a feeling he's going to put that down to systemic error.
I'm also starting to think he's more of a kabbalist than a Jew.
>>988421
It's strange to me that you think human beings have radically changed over the past few thousand years, despite all the evidence that we have not. You must be one of those people who believe they have monkeys in their family tree.
>>988446
>It's strange to me that you think human beings have radically changed over the past few thousand years
I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The post you replied to is the first I made in this thread.
I'm just pointing out that you can't judge the actions done in a time period by the moral standards of another. Although I'm willing to agree that it is justified to judge a situation by the moral standards of a previous perio.
>>988418
>God loves everyone and wants them to accept him
>God also blinds and hardens people's hearts, violating their free will while ensuring they won't accept him
Christcuck inconsistencies.
>>988461
>You can't apply modern morals to ancient times because of the cultural climate of the period
This is wrong. That's what I'm talking about. Murder was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
>>988446
That's funny of you to say since every creatonist i have met on here have stayed that the Neanderthals aa they being how humans looked before the flood and sin made us fall in stature, which is a rather big chAnge in a short time.
>>988468
Cause and effect.
Crucify the Messiah, get sidelined while Gentiles take your inheritance.
>>988471
>Murder was wrong then
>mfw there are atheists that unironically believe in objective morality
>>988474
Yes, because men used to live to be older than now. Like 969 years, tops.
And over 969 years, the skull keeps developing. If you take one of those aging simulations, and keep going, you end up with a Neanderthal head.
You know, the "beasts" the evolutionists first said were "animals", and now admit were tool making intellectuals.
>>988480
>first redditors and now creationists
this board is going places
>>988406
>Google Translate.
Let's try it without those pesky אֵת
Well, it doesn't recognize "and the earth" and calls it "hartz", but other than that, it's the same exact thing. Maybe אֵת has no meaning. Let's try it in isolation in part two.
>>988432
Nope, I don't ascribe to any mystical schools. Hell, the "Zohar", or at least what's being floated around as Shimon Bar Yochai's stuff, has a few portuguese words, which would be odd if it was authentic.
>>988478
Atheist.
Read the thread.
Selecte uno.
>>988421
You are the idiot and the fact that you are so confident in your foolery is what makes your post that much more amusing. Morality certainly has changed since yesterday, though it did come from a similar place. Have you read any Nietszche? I'm guessing you have and what's even worse is how poorly you understand him. Please read some more Nietszche and Bible before you shitpost.
>>988486
The flea collars? God made those first?
>>988480
The evolutionists ever said they weren't humans? And if you had sghown a neantherthal skull to an creatoonist he would just have said it was false.
>>988486
>>988406
Looks like it does have meaning. Quite a few. It's clearly not being used as a noun. Oh, look here, sign of the accusative. And yet for some reason the translator is incapable of altering the sentence to include an accusative when they're included. It's almost like it's wrong, because it's applying English grammatical norms to Hebrew which doesn't have the same grammatical norms, and not altering the word choice to reflect the intent as best it can, instead opting to translate the words that have direct meaning, and ignoring the ones that can't fit into the mold.
>>988394
>>988426
This is an incredibly weak interpretation of Scripture and of false doctrine. Read the all the books of John more carefully, you wield the word anti-Christ like a myth inspired adherent of a pagan sky father.
>>988253
Your words are totally unconvincing because they are premised on sentiments which I obviously don't share: Anyone who disagrees with you has a zero SQ, because you are incapable of engaging them on equal terms. kek.
In my understanding, your IQ, EQ and SQ is practically 0, and your pretense of having an IQ to discern the things the way that you do, is being overtly misapplied. My position has been consistent and clear that there is nothing I would wish to learn from you, telling me to humble and JUST to learn, must of been something you inherited from your hideous religious instruction. Don't think I should been to dirty myself with your false teachings and ways.
>>988486
I have to ask. Do you know the difference between a dependent-clause and a substantival clause?
>>988508
So what does the original Hebrew sentence translates accurately to, then?
>>988506
Of course. They were trotted out as missing links. And yes, I'm old.
>>987780
Well, besides the fact that we live in a vastly different culture with vastly different ideas of what morals are separated not only ideologically but by about 2000 years of time...
I bet you think you're so fucking tolerant and benevolent with your bullshit, don't you? But what you're doing would be the same as the American colonialists calling the natives barbaric because they didn't share their culture, or vise versa. You're projecting your culture onto a different group of people and saying that they should act just like you because obviously we, in our progressive enlightened times, know how everyone in every place and every time should behave.
Get your head out of your own ass. Just because we consider something wrong today doesn't make it objectively wrong you fucking pseudo-intellectual hack.
>>988514
editing mistake on the last sentence, it should read:
Don't think I should be keen to dirty myself with your false teachings and ways.
>>988514
John said the spirit of antichrist was already in existence in his day.
It's been here since the serpent hit the ground in Eden.
It's not that you disagree with me. It's that you have no basis by which to understand the things of God.
For instance, you are dead right now, and don't even know it. And on a human basis, you're kind of an asshole.
>>988530
>vastly different ideas of what morals are
Go ahead and give some examples of that. You know, us then v us now sorts of changes.
>>988531
11/10 autistic. Your emotional overreaction to a thread on Cain is amusing.
>>987680
>Abraham deceives Pharaoh
Didn't God punish him for this? I thought the book made it clear that Abraham sinned by doing this.
>Jacob deceives Esau
Not really. Esau sold his inheritance for a fucking bowl of soup. Jacob was only getting what he deserved when he pretended to be Esau.
>>988550
Abraham was actually made a rich man, and gently but firmly escorted out of Egypt.
The better question is, why was Abraham seeking refuge in Egypt, and not in God?
>>988519
Actually, no, as far as I'm aware, they're just two different terms for subordinate clauses, stuff that would not in of itself make a complete sentence, even though they include a subject and a predicate.
>>988521
More accurate would be
>In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth,
Which then organically feeds into the next bit, which again, isn't actually a seperate sentence in the original, with the earth being unformed and in chaos, and darkness, yada yada yada.
>>988527
You know there's a difference beteeen monkey and misding link?
>>988550
Jacob deceived Isaac by pretending to be Esau. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall that day. Skinny little bookworm with some goat hair tied to him trying to talk like a tough guy. Just funny stuff.
>>988554
Go ahead and feel free to associate your first response to me with your other response to Anon.
>>988556
Well, since the "missing link" is by definition "missing", no, I don't know anything about it. And oddly enough, neither do you.
But one of us imagines it existed, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
>>988540
Why? They're obvious.
>slavery
>what a "just war" is and even the idea of a "just war"
>women's roles in society
>adherence to religious laws as opposed to secular laws
etc.
Also I'm talking about now v then in a really broad sense, like from Rome to now.
>>988572
Not at that time, no. He was running away from a famine.
Genesis 12:10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to dwell there, for the famine was severe in the land.
>>988575
Roman slaves were actually quite well taken care of and even held rank. The concept of just war is as old as Rome. Women's role in society is unchanged; they make babies. And adhering to laws is also unchanged; left alone when in compliance, punished when not.
Are you sure about these things?
>>988585
Okay, so you're arguing that trying to get food shows a lack of faith?
>>988611
Yup. Especially when you're the father of faith.
No scared flight to Egypt, no slave woman Hagar who you sleep with and spawn Ishmael. No ISIS.
>>988539
Your 'refutation' is presumptuous, doesn't speak to the point i was raising in any regard.
and your ad hominen is evidence enough of your dissensions style of engagement.
Its like, your so unintelligent, you can't even imagine how you awfully constructed interpretations are feeble perversions of doctrine. Do you belong to some kind of Charasmatic church that that teaches people to think in such a defensive style of specious presumption that its capabale of building its membership into a giant monolith of group-think that it obviously too power to not be the real deal?
You do know your style of engagment is completely toxic, and that my responsiveness is designed not to fall prey its implicit form of vanity. You don't know the first thing about spiritual understanding, and really, pretending to conduct a shouting match with such a dweeb is something I do wish I could escape from, but your spidery language weaves its web of false superiority in such a cheap way, I feel I have to point out how dishonest it is lest you mislead those who think your cheap tactics hold any merit.
You are like the worst version of hollow spirituality dressed in the worst unwillingness to actually provide positive reasoning for your correctness. You do know that when you think you have "won" by attacking a strawman, you've only defeated the imaginary argument that is your private construction (and the hidden tongue to your ways (so we get the express tongue and another hidden version, making you the proverbial snake in my understanding).
To have such a vile person think that I am shit, is honestly a compliment, I do not think you know the first thing about the workings of salvation (this should be blatantly obvious by now), so telling me about how I am dead, is just makes me glad that I am dead to the world you are apart of.
>>988631
editing correction for the 2nd line, the incorrect word should read instead of "dissensions":
disingenuous
>>988617
instead we'd have the ZSIS
>>988631
You already said you were not saved. That means you are spiritually dead, whether you believe it or not, and whether you understand it or not. By your own words, you are a dead man, separated from God, right this minute. You do not have the Holy Spirit in you, and He is Life. Without Him, you have no Life in you.
So I do not presume anything, but understand the nature of spiritual death, and judge you by your own words.
That said, you are a vain person, and looking to me to help you become a humble person.
Draw near to the holy God, and you will be humbled. He will take your vanity from you in a righteous second.
>>988638
12/10 autistic
>>988643
kek
Probably, knowing us.
>>988644
When did I say that? is this like when you fabricated the scriptural quote?
>>988595
Did you suddenly forget what you were asking me or something?
>Roman slaves were actually quite well taken care of and even held rank.
And yet for some strange reason the mere concept of slavery, no matter how humane, is frightening to us today. It's almost as if in the last couple hundred years Western peoples have had a dramatic ideological shift or something like...like...an "enlightenment."
>The concept of just war is as old as Rome.
And yet somehow it's evolved since then and now doesn't even resemble the Roman theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
>Women's role in society is unchanged; they make babies.
You obviously don't live in a Western country. I'm not even gonna bother explaining to you the history of women gaining more power in the workforce and in government positions in modern times.
>And adhering to laws is also unchanged; left alone when in compliance, punished when not.
I specified RELIGIOUS LAWS you fucktard. I specifically said that what has changed is the nature of the laws which people adhere to, not the fact that they adhere to laws in general.
>Are you sure about these things?
Yeah, I am. You on the other hand seem to have a questionably shallow grasp of everything.
>>988660
I'm sorry you don't remember what you say. Maybe you should refresh your memory, instead of asking for my assistance.
>>988570
A missing link is what links us to an earlier phase in evolution, which as i get it also means it long was unknown. Neantherthals didn't move from ape to human but from our ancestor to a cousin with a common ancestor.
>>988662
There's slavery today. There are more slaves in the USA today than there were at the time of the Civil War. And slavery went from conquest and eventual assimilation to chattel.
If you're arguing that morality has declined, you may be right about that in practice. To say that morality is changed, none of your examples demonstrate that.
All laws are religious laws; some just have the State as God.
>>988680
No, it is not. A missing link is a hypothesis that has no evidence for it, to support a theory that has no evidence for it, to substantially uphold a godless worldview that is false.
>>988686
Holy shit you are retarded.
>>988660
cont.
You literally just make up any shit you feel you need to carry on with your unconvincing charade at superiority. Notice how not any thing brought against me has any substance apart from being called names on playfield of childishness. Because this Scripture refers to you and your ilk:
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
>>988694
It must be frustrating for you not to be able to dissect the least of a "retard's" arguments.
>>988696
I'm literally posting sound doctrine from the bible for you to read and understand. It's literally called the protevangelion. I'm not tickling anyone's ears.
For instance, you're a complete dolt.
>>988660
>I am certainly not part of any group you could consider "saved".
>>988677
maybe you should use green text instead up making up your own quotes like blatant deceiver.
Are you maybe just a troll? Because your insincerity is now at the point where it's close to unbelievable. I lay out reasoning for everything I say, you expect me to respect your unsubstantiated self-righteousness that just runs away from all of its false and specious claims?
You are being total scum and I rebuke you for it.
>>988714
Ok, now you have quoted me, now go learn how to advance your reading level and then rejoin /his/ kthnxbye.
>>988716
In whose name are you attempting to rebuke me? In my own Lord and Savior Jesus of Nazareth's name?
kek
I'm fine letting Him judge between us, unbeliever.
>>988723
Seriously, are you 12? Are you aware that you must be 18 to post here?
>>988722
Do I know what greentexting is? I fucking designed the internet and 4chan.
so yes I know what it is, although I have forgotten how to do it. Because my accomplishments in life are not so limited to engaging in internet arguments in dubious and shady ways to only look like the winner, I actually get shit done, which im afraid now must include no longer wasting my time with you simpletons.
>>988726
I can tell by what you say, that you are being mislead by a very stupid form of doctrine. Good luck is all I can say.
>>988690
Yiu mean apart from several remains from other species of humans?
>>988742
>I fucking designed the internet and 4chan.
>Are you Al Gore?
>>988773
No, Al Gore only invented the internet. I clearly said that I designed it.
>>988761
There are no other species of humans. Any human today could mate with Adam or Eve, depending.
>>988795
Yeah I'd mate with Eve allright
>>988795
Adam and Eve didn't exist though
>>988795
What if they aren't even Homo?
>>988631
Different Anon here. I think you come off as an asshole too, and you can't help but lower yourself and your level of dialogue by engaging with someone who insults you without even trying to understand you.
It's a little funny, and a little sad, but ultimately I recognize that you are human, and I am myself filled with worse flaws.
That said, reading your words is a blast, and you enthrall me despite how I have just teased you. I imagine there is a lot I could learn from you, though I feel you might belittle me. However I do have the patience for being belittled, if it is from someone I feel I can learn from.
So, carry on. Your perspective is almost exotic to me and I love every minute of it. You remind me of a Muslim friend of mine named Yezen. You share an almost esoteric yet old-school way of speaking and thinking.
>>987831
>They sound like a bunch of crooked hillbillies.
So perfectly put
>>988742
moot?
>>988421
So much anger. It's anti-social, really. You need to learn to play well with others. Because you haven't, you sit in the corner by yourself, angry and embittered.
>>987846
How?
>>988894
I am better at communicating my ideas verbally in a more peaceable way, writing requires precision in order to be direct. There is no point in coddling people's differing opinions and pretending to nearer to them when I am totally opposed to their understanding. I have thought about trying to establish some kind of mystery school, just creating a bible-study is really not sufficient, which the Scriptures themselves attest to: the correct extension of study is impossible for people who come from traditions of 'Christianity' which in my opinion, is just bastardized beyond recognition.
>>989068
bible study for non-christians sounds like fun to me
>>988894
Can you describe a better tactic for comprehensively rebuking a fool without drawing into his versions of testing?
In my opinion, it is not wise to entreat with hollow accusations that stand as flimsy sign posts that declare a victory to be found someway far from any clearly discerned road. Sadly in this analogy, the only way to feasibly discredit a liar is to venture into the wildness and survey the lack of victory that was advertised in vain.
I hope there were more grounds to your claim that I appear to be an asshole, because if your criticism is only premised on the complaint that I don't deal with poisonously toxic fools more respectfully, I can't offer you legitimate sympathy on your inpatient stance. Potentially inpatient for if you were expecting a better outcome with no mind towards a specific means of tact that provides a real victory.
>>988990
Most ancient works were done by patronage, and the writer made the patron look good. Always.
For instance, Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem, but one night 185,000 of his soldiers were slaughtered in an instant. His army retreated back to their own country, and the records of his efforts were laudatory as to how he caged them and forced them to retreat into their city capital. Not a mention of 185,000 dead soldiers.
His sons weren't fooled, killed him in his defeat, and took over his kingdom.
But if you read the scribes of Sennacherib, it was a victory.
>>989068
I love how you gloss right over the fact that he called you an asshole.
>>987888
/pol/tards can't relate to actual human beings.
>>989106
So his sons writ about those dead soldiers?
Or some other non jew?
>>989084
I'm not sure how I would open a line of communication without undue interference occurring, but generally I would want to talk to the treatment of many Spiritual issues in a way that's not generally considered religious, and that wouldn't be connected in many obvious ways to the Scripture, and I wouldn't want to be targeted for forming a cult, and I'm afraid what I have to say on most matters will appear so alien it won't escape the cult label (which I am not afraid of in itself, but its too troublesome a stigma for me to adopt at this time- also because I would make further claims that are very hard to take seriously, and I don't have the means to gather the evidence I would need to be comfortable making those claims openly). Jesus had a lot easier, when he just openly said: 'there are many things I would say, which you are not yet ready to bear.' There little else I can comment at this time. I have a blog, which is a very very obscure version of a lot of paltry incremental thinking on my general body of work, a lot of the things on my blog are rough sketches of some foundational elements that I have largely remodeled for a lot of study of the sinful character of man and the basic nature of spiritual reality which is obscures. I made this blog in part to use a shield if my some of more advanced recorded works were plagiarized (I have lots of data sheets on mapping the cognitive processes of emotional loops that are affects of personality styles moulded by the fall). Don't read deeply into the writing on my blog, I should at some point update it with more profound explanations that reflect my more converged treatment of my vast research, but my focus should really rather just be focused on writing a book on it, which is difficult for me to produce without resources to conduct product studies to verify my claims. cont.->
>>989192
Again, my blog is approximated interpretation on some various parts of my psychological research, and I have since reworked the context of that research . stevenw8.tumblr.com
>>987680
>self preservation
Theory of evolution confirmed.
>>988978
I am not who you know to be moot.
I shall not say more on this, because my position is obscured by my decisions to be anonymous for the purposes of my greater works. And also I do not like the idea of unsettling others who also played major roles for which their credit is well deserved.
>>987801
You speak like a Scriptural purist.
Maranatha.
>2016
>still not following the instructions of the Torah
At least the kikes put on a show.
>>987683
Then why do religious people try to apply ancient morals to modern people?
#deep
>>989342
implying I think my treatment of doctrine doesn't cover the distinction between life by law and life by truth.
Do you have to veil your shitty judgements in obtuse way, it makes me look labored about having to carry my answers right up to meet your weaseling attention.
>>989162
I don't think they did, no. Rulers in ancient countries really did try to be divine, and therefore perfect. Just the "trapped him like a bird in a cage" reference iirc.
>>989192
This post gave me autism.
>>989196
>stevenw8.tumblr.com
>In my lonely desperation
You're literally what I thought you were. You poor, poor bastard.
>>989458
So nothing else than the bible for it?
I mean, such an event should be able to spread to non jews as well so many dying during a night with everyone hating the assyrians and all.
>>989461
If you even bothered to read the whole article, my position is a forged by higher principles of exercised choice. What have you ever suffered for your 'faith'? If the weight of blood soaked onto this earth were measured (this is speaking in spiritual terms), I have bought the world pound for pound. I care not if there is no multitudes to share it with, you might drown in the sea of worldly fodder, and my little known doctrine is content to preserve as it might.
2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
2Co 4:8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
2Co 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
>>988253
Why are you making shit up, bro?
>>989540
thats a bit late to go back to now, obvious troll is derpy.
Ima exit this thread now, its too basic for me to tolerate any further.
>>988253
how the fuck do you calculate a spiritual quotient?
>>989525
I just can't be mean to you. I just can't.
>>989548
>I'll call him a troll. That will make the pain go away.
>story about deception
>starting teh Jews
Literally the oldest story known to man: Jews deceiving
>>989558
Probably by measuring how clear their navels are.
>>988421
>The individualism you are trying to apply to the characters in the Bible is more or less a result of The Enlightenment
Nigga what. Do you think ancient people were just units of society incapable or unwilling to think for themselves?
>>987680
>KJV
>KJV
>KJV
>KJV
This version differs from the oldest known manuscripts in over 400 instances.
>>987725
>It means deceiving and all that amoral stuff is fine if you are backed by the local desert war god.
/thread
>>988253
>your spiritual quotient stops after this life is over
What a bunch of bullshit, it just gets better.
>>991270
Exactly. How can morality invented by God change if God doesn't change?
When you look at the planet from orbit, the impact of the Himalayas on Earth’s climate seems obvious.
It creates the rain shadow to beat all rain shadows, standing athwart the latitude of the trade winds and squeezing all the rain out of them before they head southwest, thus supplying eight of the Earth’s mightiest rivers, but also parching not only the Gobi to the immediate north, but also everything to the southwest, including Pakistan and Iran, Mesopotamia, Saudi Arabia, even North Africa and southern Europe.
The dry belt runs more than halfway across the Eurasia-African landmass — a burnt rock landscape, home to the fiery religions that then spread out and torched the rest of the world. Coincidence?
>>992148
I once read an essay about a similar idea from Gary Snyder. Maybe Vico wrote on this too? I like the notion of this idea even if it is unverifiable.
>>990857
There's about half a million discrepancies and differences in the old manuscripts anyway.
>>992015
It doesn't but our understanding of it can develop. The basis of morality or true may not change but to say we understand morality fully is not necessarily correct. The idea we can develop and improve our morals with time to get closer to true morality is valid.
Not necessarily the case, but believing in objective morals doesn't mean beliefs shouldn't change.
>>990857
differs according to whose and what fucking measure?
Mediocre literal minds that want to establish a JW-type institutional bedrock: that's who.
>>989575
>>989558
I did not make invent this SQ BS, I was simply returning the weak form hollow argument ironically to illustrate its futility.
But thank you for trying to punish me with the same point I had already just made.
that is why I referred to you as troll, and if you continue to harass me then my method of pain reduction will only be further vindicated.
