Biblical question and problems

[MrToilet]

Let me start out- I consider myself Christian, I go to church, etc, etc. I just don't think the Bible is completely factually accurate, as the Lutheran Church tells me.

For starters - if indeed the early history of humanity (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel) is indeed true - How did Cain have any children? According to Scripture, Adam and Eve had two boys, Cain, and Abel, right? Did they subsequently have more children? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

And why is it that the Noah flood story plagiarize material from an old Sumerian epic? There is a story titled "The Epic of Gilgamesh" that is strikingly similar to the Noachian flood story from Genesis. Here's a link detailing the similarities:
Comparisons

Anyway- can anyone answer these for me? Any more input?

 

[StevenYoo]

i think cain took his sister as wife.

not sure

 

[mugs]

They had additional children, Seth was one. I believe they had daughters as well. They must have.

I didn't read your Noah link, just skimmed it... but it doesn't say that the Biblical version was plagiarized, it could have been the other way around. Or it could have been two independent accounts of the same event.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Let me start out- I consider myself Christian, I go to church, etc, etc. I just don't think the Bible is completely factually accurate, as the Lutheran Church tells me.

For starters - if indeed the early history of humanity (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel) is indeed true - How did Cain have any children? According to Scripture, Adam and Eve had two boys, Cain, and Abel, right? Did they subsequently have more children? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

And why is it that the Noah flood story plagiarize material from an old Sumerian epic? There is a story titled "The Epic of Gilgamesh" that is strikingly similar to the Noachian flood story from Genesis. Here's a link detailing the similarities:
Comparisons

Anyway- can anyone answer these for me? Any more input?

Just apply scientific methods to your problem... oh wait.... you can't.

 

[tweakmm]

1)Incest
2)The bible is just repeated metaphorical storys from times of old, there is not much new. The various religious concepts that we consider to be modern religion have been around since humans.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: mugs
They had additional children, Seth was one. I believe they had daughters as well. They must have.

Yes. The Bible doesn't list all the other kids, though, but it's fair to assume they had daughters. And the flood story appears in other cultures, which doesn't mean that Noah's flood was plagarized, it just means that this event indeed did happen, and was recorded by many different groups of people.

 

[MrToilet]

So I'm to think that (assuming the Biblical story is true) that we're all products of intra-family marriages and incest? Scary.

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Let me start out- I consider myself Christian, I go to church, etc, etc. I just don't think the Bible is completely factually accurate, as the Lutheran Church tells me.

You don't say... Maybe you should stop while you're ahead, or you might end up in purgatory.

Originally posted by: MrToilet
So I'm to think that (assuming the Biblical story is true) that we're all products of intra-family marriages and incest? Scary.

No, only people who take the Bible as a fact.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Just apply scientific methods to your problem... oh wait.... you can't.

That's like saying "apply scientific methods to determine how the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon." Maybe if his question was about creation your comment would make sense, but instead you just look like a troll trying to start a flamefest in a relgion thread. Oh how original.

 

[mdchesne]

for starters, why are you trying to make sense of religion based on lies. in fact, most religions are based on lies and the only "followers" are those stupid or gullible enough to believe it. The bible itself is just a collection of stories, most of which are fables, and trying to peice together any correlations is just a waste of time

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: MrToilet
So I'm to think that (assuming the Biblical story is true) that we're all products of intra-family marriages and incest? Scary.

No, only people who take the Bible as a fact.

Umm... even if you believe in evolution, we're still all products of incest somewhere along the line.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Isn't it true that alot of the bible was pulled and pieced together from other religions?

 

[mugs]

Welp, didn't take long for this thread to crash and burn. At least the OP got his answer.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
So I'm to think that (assuming the Biblical story is true) that we're all products of intra-family marriages and incest? Scary.

Even if you don't believe in the Bible, there are many cases of incest from when the Earth was less populated, so we are all essentially related.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: mdchesne
for starters, why are you trying to make sense of religion based on lies. in fact, most religions are based on lies and the only "followers" are those stupid or gullible enough to believe it. The bible itself is just a collection of stories, most of which are fables, and trying to peice together any correlations is just a waste of time

You didn't even attempt to answer his questions, so why are you posting?

Exactly, so go away.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: MrToilet
So I'm to think that (assuming the Biblical story is true) that we're all products of intra-family marriages and incest? Scary.

No, only people who take the Bible as a fact.

Umm... even if you believe in evolution, we're still all products of incest somewhere along the line.

I'm not sure if that's exactally how it works, someone who knows more about evolutions can probably explain in greater detail.
It wasn't like all of a sudden there were a male and female human and they started procreating to create the human race.

 

[Billzie7718]

If we all came from the same 2 people, how are we all so different now? I would think it doesnt get any more watered down than say a few thousand years.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
So I'm to think that (assuming the Biblical story is true) that we're all products of intra-family marriages and incest? Scary.

Even if you don't believe in the Bible, there are many cases of incest from when the Earth was less populated, so we are all essentially related.

The incest was generally done by the elite no? So one could make that argument about a decent of one of the royal families of old, I'm not sure how well it applies to the common man.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
I'm not sure if that's exactally how it works, someone who knows more about evolutions can probably explain in greater detail.
It wasn't like all of a sudden there were a male and female human and they started procreating to create the human race.

Oh, I know that. But at some point before humans evolved, we'd all have to have come from the same original set of genetic code, right?

My point is... it's no big deal either way.

 

[MrToilet]

Wow- didn't think people would be this interested...

anyway, to get this thread back on topic- I guess just have concerns about people proclaiming the Bible as the end-all/be-all factual source for everything, when there are obvious omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Didn't think this thread would veer toward incest so fast.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Billzie7718
If we all came from the same 2 people, how are we all so different now? I would think it doesnt get any more watered down than say a few thousand years.

I'm no scientist, but I think it's possible for humans to have extraneous genetic code, which, if Adam and Eve had tons of, there offspring would be varied. Also, outside environmental factors (such as ultraviolet light) could have cause genetic mutations and variations.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Wow- didn't think people would be this interested...

anyway, to get this thread back on topic- I guess just have concerns about people proclaiming the Bible as the end-all/be-all factual source for everything, when there are obvious omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Didn't think this thread would veer toward incest so fast.

What inaccuracies or ommissions? The Bible was meant to be a guide for mankind from God on how we should live and the path to salvation, and not as a science textbook to explain everything in the universe. Even then, the Bible is incredibly accurate and well preserved, and is as relevant today as when it was first completed.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Wow- didn't think people would be this interested...

anyway, to get this thread back on topic- I guess just have concerns about people proclaiming the Bible as the end-all/be-all factual source for everything, when there are obvious omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Didn't think this thread would veer toward incest so fast.

What inaccuracies or ommissions? The Bible was meant to be a guide for mankind from God on how we should live and the path to salvation, and not as a science textbook to explain everything in the universe. Even then, the Bible is incredibly accurate and well preserved, and is as relevant today as when it was first completed.

The bible may very well explain a lot more than people give it credit for, especially the atheists. Of course, the explanations are not literal, but given in allegory.
The truth is always hidden in the open.

<-- agnostic, very strongly leaning towards a universal force, not quite like and not quite unlike a "god".

 

[GeneValgene]

i am guessing that the bible is not all-inclusive (i.e. it doesnt' record everything)

on the time line, the epic of gilgamesh was most likely written long before moses (who is believed to have written the first five books of the old testament)

depends on how you look at it - some can say the epic is an evidence to a mass flood that occurred. others will look at it and say moses' account was just a knock off.

later on, ovid records the mythological story of baucis and philemon which also contains a mass flood story with lots of similiarities (although ovid came long after moses)

 

[dullard]

Book of Genesis:

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.



Notice the bold part. Where does it say he created only one man and only one woman? "Them" could very easilly refer to hundreds or thousands who were created (at once or over a period of time). In Chapter 2, the bible speaks of one specific man, but that doesn't mean it was either the first or only man.

If I only speak of MrToilet in this post/thread does it mean that MrToilet was the first and only Anandtech member at the time of this post?