When God created

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and the first woman's name is preserved in the Isaiah passage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never questioned the scripture you quoted, the reason I posted every version I had on the text is that no where in the text does it say this was the first woman or even hint to such an idea.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Joey,
Refer to your earlier post where you asked "What Bible are you reading from?" to which he has responded.
You also insinuated because of your limited resources that Lilith wasn't mentioned in Isa. 34:14 followed by your accusation of his false theology.

Do you find it at all ironic that you quoted Jesus when he said "Woe unto you, Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites...

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Joey,

You said, "What Bible are you reading from Josh!!!
Now I see how you justify Homosexuality, from your false theologies.
Hey if I read from that same one you are can I go back to selling drugs like I did before I got saved?

Your clear implication was that I was not using the "real" Bible because you didn't see any reference to Lilith in your translations (although you might have if you checked the footnotes in some editions).

If you'll recheck my post, I did not say that Lilith was called the first woman in Isaiah. I said that the only biblical reference we have to her is there.

Again, please spare me the accusations of not using the real Bible or not believing the Bible.

Joshua

 

[Rev. Joshua]

SPAM,

I don't think the Babylonians were as concerned with the idea of a sinless Creator in their mythology.

I don't think Adam, Eve (or Lilith for that matter) where real people. The story is an allegory, and one that was borrowed from the Babylonians and used to illustrate our relationship to God.

Joshua

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
It's more than just a casual opinion. The general consensus among Old Testament scholars is that the two creation accounts in Genesis are edited versions of the Babylonian account.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is by no means the "general consensus." Be careful with how you throw around these terms. Some people do believe that but there is no conclusive evidence and very little circumstantial evidence to support that theory. It has been refuted by a number of credible biblical scholars.

It is interesting to me that when people see similarities, the questions are always made about Scripture. There is a very simple reason for the similarities. The revelation from God was passed down and distorted by those who did not know God. Why are the Babylonian accounts very similar in some ways to Scripture? Because they were borrowed from Scripture.

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Your clear implication was that I was not using the "real" Bible because you didn't see any reference to Lilith in your translations (although you might have if you checked the footnotes in some editions). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No it was a clear reference that the Bible is not saying what you are trying to make it say.

 

[donnA]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think Adam, Eve (or Lilith for that matter) where real people. The story is an allegory, and one that was borrowed from the Babylonians and used to illustrate our relationship to God <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what,, God lied in the bible? He didn't know what He was talking about? Is God confused or what? He doesn't really remember correctly, what is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>two creation accounts in Genesis are edited versions of the Babylonian account. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do you believe in scripture? Any of it?

If God lied in any one sentance, then we can't believe any of it at all. How do we know it isn't all made up? How do we know it wasn't all barrowed from someone else?

I believe the bible is true, exactly as it reads. God is the author not of lies, but truth only. It all true, or none of it is true.

 

[John Wells]

Katie,

You're right, the only one confused is Joshua. Herein lies the crux of his problem:

"I don't think Adam, Eve (or Lilith for that matter) where real people. The story is an allegory, and one that was borrowed from the Babylonians and used to illustrate our relationship to God."

He only believes the parts of the Bible he wants to. His is a three-ring binder Bible. When he runs across something he doesn't like, out pops the page.

By the way, here are some versions of Isa. 34:14:

14 And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest. ASV

14 Wildcats and hyenas will hunt together, demons will scream to demons, and creatures of the night will live among the ruins. CEV

14 And wild animals shall meet with hyenas; the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there the night bird settles and finds for herself a resting place. ESV

14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. KJV

14 The desert creatures will meet with the wolves, The hairy goat also will cry to its kind; Yes, the night monster will settle there And will find herself a resting place. NASB95

14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals, And the wild goat shall bleat to its companion; Also the night creature shall rest there, And find for herself a place of rest. NKJV

14 Wild animals of the desert will mingle there with hyenas, their howls filling the night. Wild goats will bleat at one another among the ruins, and night creatures will come there to rest. NLT

Looks like a good number of biblical scholars disagree. Where's Lilith?

 

[Dr. Bob]

DISCLAIMER As Administrator I am always saddened when good discussion goes off into a non-biblical direction. So posting this caveat rather than stopping all discussion:

To the visitors or casual observers who come by this thread. The ultra-liberal position of genesis as "myth" or hybrid stories stolen from Babylon are NOT the views of most members of this BB.

While we look to the Bible as the authoritative support, the extreme liberal end of the spectrum looks to destroy the Bible basis for any absolute truth. They can then believe what they want without any feeling of guilt.

We are not condemning a man, but I would hate to confuse the casual reader with such a radical and Bible-denying position.

(If you draw political parallels, most BB participants would be moderates or conservatives of the Bush/Reagan ilk. But we have some who hold positions farther left than Ted Kennedy. Beware.)

 

[Rev. Joshua]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
Looks like a good number of biblical scholars disagree. Where's Lilith?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, she's in the Hebrew. If you don't have access to the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, I'll scan in the appropriate page and post a link. The translations that choose "night monster" are identifying Lilith by her role in Jewish and Babylonian folklore because they don't want to point out that a figre from Babylonian mythology made it into the Bible. Nevertheless, as the other textual evidence cited by the BDB indicates, /Liyliyth/ is a proper name and it is occurs in Hebrew only in reference to that particular mythological figure.

Joshua

 

[Rev. Joshua]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
DISCLAIMER As Administrator I am always saddened when good discussion goes off into a non-biblical direction. So posting this caveat rather than stopping all discussion:

To the visitors or casual observers who come by this thread. The ultra-liberal position of genesis as "myth" or hybrid stories stolen from Babylon are NOT the views of most members of this BB.

While we look to the Bible as the authoritative support, the extreme liberal end of the spectrum looks to destroy the Bible basis for any absolute truth. They can then believe what they want without any feeling of guilt.

We are not condemning a man, but I would hate to confuse the casual reader with such a radical and Bible-denying position.

(If you draw political parallels, most BB participants would be moderates or conservatives of the Bush/Reagan ilk. But we have some who hold positions farther left than Ted Kennedy. Beware.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob,

This discussion has not gone off topic. Katie asked why Eve was made from Adam's rib (an admittedly odd part of the story). I gave the standard, textual answer; one that she would have gotten in Christian seminaries all around the world.

On a different note, I know the liberals who are the Ted Kennedys of Christianity. Believing that Genesis 1-11 is mythic truth rather than historical truth does not put me or BWSmith, or Barbarian, or Russell Honeycutt or any of the millions of other baptists who believe that in theological left field. I didn't know a single person in my baptist seminary who thought the first 11 books in Genesis were historical. There may have been a couple of night students who believed such, but I never had any contact with them.

Joshua

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

[rhoneycutt]

John
ITS IN THE HEBREW!! He gave you the reference.

Your posting of different versions is a waste of space. Why did you leave out the NRSV. Lilith is in there. Please refer to earlier post.

Your continued blatant blasting of Joshua is repulsive. Please stop. He has never said he doesnt believe the Bible. Katie asked a question and got an answer. Why are you threatened by this?

Because people interpret scripture differently than you do (believe it or not) doesnt make them wrong.

 

[John Wells]

rhoneycutt,

No need to repeat your post of the NRSV. What part of Joshua's witness do YOU not find wrong?

1) Homosexuality is not a sin.
2) Adam and Eve are fictional.
3) Abortion is an acceptable choice.

I find his views repulsive along with your defense of them, and I will never be ashamed of the gospel, nor to stand for its truths! You got a problem with that? Too bad!

 

[Rev. Joshua]

John,

Of the three you mentioned (and there are several qualifications on my opinion on abortion - the most important being that I don't think it should be illegal in a secular nation (like the U.S.)), only the fact that I believe that Adam and Eve were not real people is relevant here. There are a lot of Christians (I would argue probably the vast majority) who do not believe that Adam and Eve are real people. Many of them would agree with you on homosexuality and abortion.

Joshua

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Herein lies the problem with Joshua (not to be confused with the giant of the faith in the Bible) is he just needs to know Christ in salvation. We must pray for him as no one can know Christ and deny the truth of God's word..

Adam and Eve aren't real people? Then if Adam was not a real person where did original sin come from, so then JV must deny original sin?

What do you do with the folllowing passage?

1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.


What people in Bible College believes is irrevelant, thus sayeth the Lord is all that matters. There is too much quoting of "scholars" in the world today and not enough thus sayeth the Lord. Who are we, mere sinful men, to change the Word of God to fit what society believes?

Oh, by the way, I am not judging JV, just examining the evidence, which is pretty conclusive/

Ernie
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
John,

Of the three you mentioned (and there are several qualifications on my opinion on abortion - the most important being that I don't think it should be illegal in a secular nation (like the U.S.)), only the fact that I believe that Adam and Eve were not real people is relevant here. There are a lot of Christians (I would argue probably the vast majority) who do not believe that Adam and Eve are real people. Many of them would agree with you on homosexuality and abortion.

Joshua

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[rhoneycutt]

John,
Why then did you need to include KJV, NKJV, NAS (previously posted by Joey) and leave off the NRSV unless you were slanting the presentation of such to add to the validity of your conclusions?
The fact that you find Joshuas views repulsive does not make them incorrect. I agree with his view #2 on your list. Which by the way is the only one you listed pertinent to this thread.
I'm glad you are not ashamed of the gospel. Neither am I and neither is Joshua. What I have a problem with is pompous pontification, an inability to deal with the data at hand, and your continued mistreatment of our brother just because his interpretation of the scripture is different than yours.

 

[aspinks]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
most BB participants would be moderates or conservatives of the Bush/Reagan ilk. But we have some who hold positions farther left than Ted Kennedy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Katie,

Dr. Griffin is right. This is a forum that is open to everyone on the internet, so please be aware that your postings can be viewed and responded to by anyone, regardless of their spiritual or intellectual position. Much of this conflict could have been avoided if you had posted a more specific request. Perhaps something like this:

When God created Adam, then Eve, why didn't He create her from the dirt, like Adam, why did He take Adam's rib to do it? Just been reading and thought of this, and wondered what your opinions would be. By "your" I mean people who believe that the English translations of the bible are more authoritative than the original language texts, who believe that everything in them should be interpreted literally, and who believe that if the bible didn't mention it, it did not happen. I don't want any opinions that are based on information not contained in or derived from one of my approved translations. Please do not post any responses that might upset my tidy, circular logic.

 

[rhoneycutt]

aspinks

Welcome to the fray! LOL by the way.

Russell

 

[Don]

Actually, I'm waiting for one of y'all to respond to Ernie's post, since he brought up a really good point....

 

[aspinks]

The topic seems to have shifted to whether or not Adam and Eve (and Genesis) were real in the literal sense. Obviously, God would never "lie" by using a symbolic story to make a point. (Oh, except for the New Testament parables...) As for the existence and fate of Lilith, obviously God wouldn't create something, then decide to destroy it. (Oh, except for that little flood incident...)