Why Eve sinned (WT 8/2013) (page 14)

adamah

Eden said - Actually, to be all-powerful is, in abstract, an impossibility.

All of God's traits are mutually-exclusive in the abstract. Only anyone who doesn't stop to think about the implications would claim they aren't.

Yeah, the famous "stone" question is a pseudo-intellectual extra-Biblical (philosophical) exercise that is pointless and unnecessary, since the problem with God's claimed trait of omnipotence is that God blows it in the Bible itself, eg

Judges 1:19

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

So God could do anything BUT overcome those new-fangled high-tech iron chariots....

There are many more examples where God may be claimed elsewhere to know everything and be all-powerful, but the actions recorded for God would tend to indicate otherwise.

Adam

EdenOne

Cofty, when someone departs from the traditional theology that you've gotten so used to mock and deconstruct and starts playing the game by accepting your arguments in favor of evolution, you suddenly become frustrated and leave the game? tsk...

EdenOne

"The LORD was with Judah and enabled them to take possession of the hill country, but they could not drive out the people who were living in the valley because those people had iron chariots." (Holman Christian Bible) "They" - the members of the tribe of Judah.

In the original Hebrew you cannot determine who is the subject "he" or "they". So it's up to the translator to decide. Clearly the context shows that it were the Jews, not God, who couldn't dislodge their enemies from the valley, so most translations favor the use of "they".

You could have picked a better example ;)

Eden

adamah

Eden One said-

Cofty, when someone departs from the traditional theology that you've gotten so used to mock and deconstruct and starts playing the game by accepting your arguments in favor of evolution, you suddenly become frustrated and leave the game? tsk...

No worries, as I see where you're coming from, Eden.

Having learned about reality though, I'd say that it's been my experience that if you truly want to live a fact-based life based on what is KNOWN to be true (within the scientific definitions of the word), then the Bible and God as literal truths becomes untenable, at best.

Adam

cofty

Eden why would you make that assumption?

I have studied all sorts of theology. From Reformed theology to process theology to open theism to panentheism and many other shades of conservative and liberal systems.

What you are offering is a train wreck of disconnected and random ideas.

Spend a few years studying what serious theologians have come up with already.

adamah

Eden One said-

In the original Hebrew you cannot determine who is the subject "he" or "they". So it's up to the translator to decide. Clearly the context shows that it were the Jews, not God, who couldn't dislodge their enemies from the valley, so most translations favor the use of "they".

You could have picked a better example ;)

And yet you point out how fraught with peril the translation process itself is, which only undermines the sheer folly of believing that a God is controlling the process of inspiration, nevermind translation.

You should read some of Bart Ehrman's books ("Misquoting Jesus", "Jesus, Interrupted", "Forged: Writing in the Name of God", etc), if you're interested in learning more about how such mistakes happened in the NT (never-mind the OT, for now).

Adam

EdenOne

What you are offering is a train wreck of disconnected and random ideas.

Considering that you haven't read most of what I've written, that's quite a statement to make. But, alas, it's pure speculation. I'm just toying with ideas and see if there are justifiable arguments against those ideas. I'm not "offering" anything.

Btw, I find process theology, open theism and panentheism to be quite interesting.

Eden

snare&racket

Eden one,

You are free to believe as you wish of course. You are free to ponder the probability of a giant Hamster God that pees on us when it rains....

It is the way you try to apply the bible or science or natural history to your personal 'theories' in a public forum. What do you expect?

You are inventing a belief system before our eyes, that is fine, but you have to appreciate people will question the obvious flaws and wanderings from science, history or holy texts...

"In my hypothesis, Adam and Eve were created as a human couple in a time where this planet was already inhabited by human populations who evolved over the course of millions of year"

If the final word is "well I can suggest and believe anything I want without supporting evidence or writings" ...well that is fine, but that is probably best done in your head, rocking on a rocking chair with a glass of lemonade. Not a religious forum for dicussion.

I applaud out of the box thinking and open minds, but when the arguments dry up and you have no answers, to call every one close minded for not accepting that you may have answers contrary to what we currently know to be true or considered, it just sounds immature and like a squirrel trapped in the corner. Pick up your nuts and say "yeah I guess that would be unlikely" or stop offering/ debating a hypothesis that can't be debated or discussed been as you are making the rules on science, history, the bible, religion, evidence........

Snare x

EdenOne

And yet you point out how fraught with peril the translation process itself is, which only undermines the sheer folly of believing that a God is controlling the process of inspiration, nevermind translation.

The only assumption you can make is regarding the translation, and perhaps that written records could have been better kept. You cannot make fair assumptions regarding inspiration based solely on a problematic translation.

Eden

EdenOne

s & r

I didn't call anyone 'close minded', let alone everyone. I'm enjoying this, as you put it, "out of the box" discussion. I want to see how far can I stretch my speculation all the while still be within the boundaries of the Holy Book, that's all. And you know, even with much flaws, as competent people can point out, there is a possible alternative interpretation to the traditional one regarding Genesis, and I'm just entertaining thoughts about it. I'm not worried to present it in a harmonious, coherent way, I know these are random thoughts.

Why do you think this doesn't belong in a religious forum? Does "Lou Reed RIP" or "I got a problem with Sound Forge Pro" sound more fitting?

Eden

Why Eve sinned (WT 8/2013)

Share this