What is the correct view on genesis

So the ‘and’ should not be there. “Matthew probably read a bad copy of Zechariah.” in Genesis 49:11 the ‘and’ should not be there? Genesis 49:11 Lexicon: "He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes.


Thank you. ...never knew the ‘and’ should not be there.

 

I did read that chapter. There was much I didn't understand. It appears to be about how Messiah (Jacob) will deal with Edom (Esau). Beyond that, I don't know what to make of it.

 

I could see that happening when God began his interview with all three of them, but the narrative indicates that didn't happen so I don't think it's one of those things one can fix after the fact.

I disagree. I'm not a proponent of the doctrine of original sin in the traditional sense, but I can see how we're born into a culture that produces the same error. This goes to your previous comments about butterflies and instects who operate under a hive or single mind mentality. We're born into a culture that forces us to form a separate identity rather than Christ's. It's crazy because we force this separate identity onto our offspring then, the lucky ones will present the Mosaic law to their progeny which provides them with the code, and commands to operate correctly, but without the key to operating them consistently. Christians are presented the key to consistency without the code or commands to operate correctly, or rather they have all the correct commands, but they've got some corrupted code that negates the commands. Ultimately, they don't even really have the key, but a copy; a cheap counterfiet which is why it doesn't work.

 

Do you believe Eve had it right when she said Cain was a gift from God?

Don't we need to break out of the old mentality to get to a different mentality?

 

I'm not familiar with that quotation. What are you referring to?

I'm not sure it even is a mentality to begin with. In other words, breaking the old mentality may not even be necessary because we're not trying to reformulate a new mentality to begin with. We're simply noting that it's defective, or at the very least being used incorrectly. It's the idea that instead of using our mental faculties to mediate reality, Christ mediates reality. The senses are then used to enjoy reality rather than to discover reality.

Our mentality creates distance or an additional mediator between us and reality. It separates us from reality whereas there can be nothing more fundamental than a direct connection to reality. This is something I am becoming more convinced of every day. We are already connected to reality so all we need to do is admit this simple fact. We can't know it because the only things we can know are symbols, abstract constructions etc. which by definition, are substitutions.

 

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

I was referring to what Paul wrote in Romans 8 about the carnal mind making slaves of us and leading to death. He explains it better than I can.

 

This isn't "a gift from God", but what she acquired because this was God's deal. Cain's name literally means "acquisition", and the "LORD" refers to God as the deal maker. That was the deal she agreed to.

Same difference. The carnal mind is the same mind I'm talking about. It's separated from life so all it can do is vainly attempt to grab at life whereas Christ is life so there is no need to grab at all. Everything is created by him and for him. There is no such thing as private property in Christ. When we let go our personal possessions, not to mention our fabricated identity, we see that the world truly is our oyster. There's no longer any necessity to try to hold onto any of it because it's as ephemeral as our quickly dissipating identities.

if we try to hold onto it, we're just holding onto something that's going to die anyways; it's pointless.

 

I asked you four questions and you didn't attempt to answer any. Instead you come up with some supposed errors in the Bible and want me to answer your questions.

Jesus rode two. John never said He didn't. He only addresses the one.

All references you give of what was written above the Cross are true. That they were written in three different languages as pointed out in (Luke). At times the accusation is referred to. In (John) the title is referred to.

Yes, the whole Bible is true. Just because I don't know everything about the Bible doesn't mean it isn't true. It is. All of it. You on the other hand find an apparent contradiction or error. Your intelligence is insulted. So, you dismiss it as an error as man wrote the book. You just believe that which you can explain. What an empty book you have.

You asked for suggestions. I gave you mine. You should just throw your bible away. It carries no authority.

Stranger

 

Let's see: Three languages and four different things said. You don't know everything about the Bible but still know it's all true. You have a lot of faith in a written book.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

I read that and thought it was probably right. You seem to put your faith in a book.

My intelligence is insulted? I laughed out loud at that remark. Thanks for the laugh.

 

There were two. (Matt. 21:2-3) "...ye shall find an ass tied, and a a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them;...."

Stranger

 

Yes, it is all true. It is the Word of God. You don't know everything about the Bible and believe it is full of errors. How can that be when you don't know everything?

Your bible carries no authority. All you are doing is trying to cast doubt upon the written Word.

So did I.

Stranger

 

I will leave it up to God to judge you and me and am content to let it go at that.

 

Would agree one might as well throw the Word out if it is a book of errors written and penned of men. No Holy Spirit breathed word, every word which proceeded out from God, just errors which must align with man’s logic. Went back to read every version of Genesis 49:11 I could find and always Genesis agrees with Zechariah and Zechariah with Matthew. One being male and the other the Son of a female. Same thing but at the same time significant even to the “choice vine”. 1 Timothy 2:14-15 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

“Son of a female” is a significant distinction, one which had never been rode(wild). Since Genesis and Zechariah and Matthew agree...don’t see any reason to side with man’s logic rather than a God known to do that which man says is impossible.

 

I don't know the full context because I don't know who you're responding to (and probably for good reason), but would it be fair to say that you would agree that the bible is true, and yet differing interpretations and explanations can most definitely be false if not completely idiotic?

Don't feed the trolls. "Ignore" them. Trust me, it's like banishing demons to hell, and just as rewarding.

 

Has anyone ever counted the number of men given as ancestors by Matthew in his genealogy? Matthew skips some: He has Joram as the father of Uzziah (Ozias). What happened to Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah? There are variations in the spelling of names; but here there are as translated from the Hebrew.

2 Kings 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.
2 Kings 11:2 But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons which were slain; and they hid him, even him and his nurse, in the bedchamber from Athaliah, so that he was not slain.
2 Kings 14:1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.
2 Chronicles 26:1 Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.

What happened to another king, Jehoiakim? Matthew has Josiah as the father of Jeconiah (also called Coniah at times).

2 Chronicles 36:1 Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father’s stead in Jerusalem.
2 Kings 3: 34 And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.
Jeremiah 22:24 As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Matthew is trying to convey spiritual truth rather than a history of mere facts. If we want mere facts, we can read encyclopedias. Studying why he omitted some names might teach us something. Indeed he may have had a good reason to omit those three.

It could also be instructive to ask how Jeconiah could be the ancestor of Jesus after God told him this:

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

How Jesus as Messiah and son of David could be descended from Jeconiah who was told his sons would not sit on the throne of David? I think there is an answer to that, but I'm tired of typing and not in the mood anyway.

 

I hang on every word of the Bible. I take it seriously. I know, however, that there are mistakes here and there. I don't think they're serious enough to mislead anyone in a drastic way. After all, if you look at the oldest manuscripts, you find variations in several places -- who can be sure which variation is right? The New Testament has at least one forged passage -- when it was being translated from the Greek to Latin, Erasmus the translator noticed that the oldest Greek manuscripts didn't contain it and asked the Pope about it. The Pope said to include it so he did. When King James had that translation done, he took the Latin Bible of Erasmus, and that forged passage got put into the King James Version.

Looking at the variations in Revelation is amazing. It probably has more in it than the rest of the New Testament put together despite the fact there is a warning about adding or subtracting words. I have a pretty good idea what happened, and it doesn't bother me at all. It's probably my favorite book in the Bible, containing great truths -- I don't care if people copied things wrong. There's still enough there.

I think what was written above Jesus on the cross can be established with a good degree of certainty; but if people want to believe four things could be written in three languages, I can laugh about it. Trolls want to upset people. It's pretty hard to upset me. If people want to believe someone can ride two animals at the same time, it's not my problem.

Some of my biggest insights came from asking how passages that seem to contradict each other could both be true. I don't ditch passages recklessly.

 

Which one do you have in mind?

What do you think happened?

You may believe that you're not upset, but the troll doesn't see it that way, especially when one begins to troll the trolls themselves. Then they see that you're hooked. Again, you may not believe it, but a troll that posts blatant inflammatory remarks is quite simply tolling the bottom of the cesspool. Anyone who responds is necessarily hooked. When they post one logical fallacy after another, there's no point in responding because there is no debate or discussion, then it's just two trolls talking past each other. Why bother? There is nothing redeeming about pointless snide remarks.

A good policy. It's ironic how skeptics will sneer at apologists, and derisively dismiss apologetics as if they can't be valid. They don't seem to have the same policy when it comes to their cherished theories which are all "settled science".

 

It's called a fancy Latin name, the Johannine Comma. Here's a link to Wikipedia's article if you're interested: Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

It was orignally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. Then all the Hebrew copies got lost.
There are lots of clues, but I'll give you two. What we read as, "Amen, Faithful and True" would be AMN, AMN, AMN in Hebrew. You can't produce a result in Greek or English like that. In Hebrew, the words for virgin and city are similar since cities had walls around them and virgins were protected by wall. It doesn't seem like a coincidence then that the Holy City is also described as a pure bride.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

That same kind of word play is found in some of the prophets too.

Jeremiah 1:11 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree <shaqed>.
12 Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten <shaqad> my word to perform it.

Since the original Hebrew wouldn't have had vowels, they'd be same letters. I learned that reading Maimonides -- not by my own hard work.

My biggest question about Revelation is if the rider on the white horse had a bow or a rainbow. If it was written in Hebrew, translators would have had to decide which one it was. I can live with that little problem.

My guess is that the variations were the result of being translated; and sometimes people make notes in books and whoever's copying them doesn't know if they're part of the book (that got left out when the former person copied them) and got added in the margins meaning they should be, or if they're just notes.

I think trolls like to upset people. Usually I do ignore them.

The people who get the most upset by people disagreeing with them are usually the shakiest about themselves. They'd feel better about their ideas if everyone else agreed with them. If you disagree with them, it shakes their faith in what they believe. I've seen people who were fanatics, on fire about this or that, who later became skeptics or atheists. They would put down other people who disagreed as if they were so sure about things, only to fall apart suddenly later.

 

I was having fun with Stranger. I'd say some books have passages added. It doesn't bother me since I follow the rule that if it is Scripture, it's about Love somehow. If I can see the Love in a passage, then I figure it's from God and I understand it properly. If I don't see the Love in it, I say I don't know what it means. I realize that men could have added things -- and if they did, I can't be harmed because I won't see any Love in it. I could also be ignorant and not see the Love in authentic passages; but I can't be harmed if there are added passages.

I usually give up on them after a while.

 

You may be content, but I am not. When you make your statements of unbelief, I will question them. Of course you can take the advice of your friend 'shnaarkle' and be the coward as he is. But, he isn't even Christian...but, I question you also.

Stranger