gods days are longer...(pianistimo)

[semme]

pianistimo, i have reason to believe that gods days, especially in genesis are definately longer than 24 hours.
when we talk about the seven days during creation, we have to know, that in hebrew, they used the word "jom" for that occasion. However, "jom" does not only mean day, but in many cases, it loses its specific meaning and describes a word like time or moment. often its translated as day of course, since there are no strict guidelines. there are 2 passages in the bible, demonstrating clearly that the meaning is timespan or era.

isaiah 23:15..   


In that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, like the days[e] of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song of the prostitute:
(english standart version)


 At that time Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the span of a king's life. But at the end of these seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song of the prostitute:
(new international version)

do you see the difference between those versions?


another example

ezekiel 36, 33


This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and the ruins will be rebuilt.

this day certainly describes a timespan over many years, until a devastated land is rebuilt and resettled by man. especially those days in the bible that concern on the behalf of god are often longer timespans, for instance "You have not gone up into the gaps or breeches, nor built up the wall for the house of Israel that it might stand in the battle in the day of the Lord." in Hesekiel 13:5.

i think you got the point.

isnt it a matter of course that the days of god have other scales. the scripture says explicitly in psalm 90:40

"For a thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night"

of course it doesnt say thousand years are a day, but like a day, like a passed yesterday, quasi timless.

another reason why the the genesis days cant be 24h hour days are, that on the fifth day, as the animals were created who multiplied themselves via natural procreation. and this just in 24 hours?

there is also a day, that certainly isnt a normal day of 24 for hours as it says in Genesis 2:4

These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens (english standart version)

wouldnt it be absurd if this day would have 24 hours?

You also have to get used to the notion that the bible never mentions the end of the seventh day. the first 6 days excplicitly tell about the end of each day, whereas the seventh day doesnt. consequently when the seventh day lasted ( still lasts) over thousands of years, why shouldnt the others be thousands of years as well.



the biggest objection, however, turns out to be a counter evidence : Evening and Morning

at first glance, "evening and Morning" seem to be the biggest argument that those days had to be 24h days with dusk and dawn. but if you look closer at it you will see it demonstrates the opposite, because if those days would be weekdays, it would have been written as: there was evening, there was night - first day. but the scripture displays a weird, strange order: there was evening, there was MORNING - one day.
you will never find any other day in scripture that will end with a morning. that wouldnt make any sense and thats the best evidence why those days cant last 24 h. besides, night is never mentioned. evening follows a morning. that doesnt agree to our understanding of days. some point out to the jewish understanding of days, which begin already at the evening before the day. but this still wouldnt fit because evening-night-morning-day doesnt end with the morning.


how should the words morning and evening be understood?


evening = change
well, the translated word for evening in hebrew means change, transition. it describes a change, where something before is lead over to something new. melting can happen in this case and evening is a perfect example for this kind of state is the sunset.

morning = sth like an advent of something
the root meaning of morning in hebrew means to cleave, to break forth. so its very meaning is breakthrough. thats why you apply the breakthrough of the day for dawn.

so basically you could translate the same passage this way:

and then there was a transition, followed by a an advent.


every time, the work of god was finished, the work lead to the next event, which could start then. a night of god would be illogical. the periods of his working followed each other without pauses. human evening and morning however are still used as an allegory for gods action




simon

[maul]

No.

[ahinton]

pianistimo, i have reason

Have you, now?! That may not necessarily do you any favours with pianistmo!...

to believe that gods days, especially in genesis are definately longer than 24 hours.

OK - so I admit to accepting that there are therefore things to be learnt from God; after all, I wish my days were longer than that!...

when we talk about the seven days during creation, we have to know, that in hebrew, they used the word "jom" for that occasion

In Italy, a Roman Catholic friend of mine once told me that, on the seventh day, God created Italy; he'd needed the first six days to practise...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

No.

Lengthy, elaborate and convoluted responses like this can be so difficult to analyse and comprehend...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

Yes.

[pianistimo]

there's a pattern here!  i say no.  the reason for it would be coordinating the other verses in the bible to match that interpretation.  alistair brought up one - that is the imitation of us to God when we keep a seventh day of rest.  those who do it - keep it because it is an imitation of resting on the seventh day (evening and morning).   hebrews 2:4 'for He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, 'and God rested on the seventh day from all His works...there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.  for the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.'
if He can simply SAY the Word - He can create all of the things He did in a DAY.  making each day a sort equal amount of work.

i think God made time from the beginning and was aware when he used DAY (even as 'in that day') in context.  the context is 'evening and morning were the first day.'  if He had changed the context - he would use different wording for the day that the sun and moon were created.  He, himself - was the light for the first few days. 

of course, i'm not the last word on creation either - so this is my opinion.  i think that there WAS a gap between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 because time had not yet been created.  the earth was covered in water and the Spirit of God moved over these waters.  when God then separated the light from the darkness - perhaps that was the true beginning of time?  if there are verses that contradict this - then i would be interested to find out because i am also interested in the old earth theories.  although i am not interested in the old sun/moon theories.  it is plainly said they were created with the stars on the fourth day.

my understanding is that God's ways are sometimes (often) unobservable, unknowable, and have to be revealed.  perhaps some things at a later time?  heb. 11:1 'now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.  for by it the men of old gained approval.  by faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.' 

i take that to mean that there is an element of life giving power that God has to make anything (young/old) the way He wants. 

[ahinton]

Yes.

Has it occurred to you that yours is a whole 50% longer even than "maul"'s?...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

O.

[pianistimo]

well, that is because maul is not interested in explaining his reasons - but imo, he's correct.  of course, this is all speculation because none of us has seen creation or whatever happened.  that is why i take it by faith.  now maul may have some other reason to believe no.  perhaps he just wants to guess - like i do sometimes with math problems.  just to see if he can guess the correct answer.  or maybe, he really knows?!

malachi 3:2 says 'but who can endure the day of His coming?'  now noone really argues that He could come in a day.  but, how far is He travelling?  could it be that in this vast universe - it might be a miracle He could find us again.  and, yet, He knows from day to day exactly where we are because He sustains all of us by His power. 

it's all a conundrum to me - really.  if He is already here sustaining everything - then He is simply making Himself 'manifest' - which might mean - He's been here all the time and just waiting in a corner of our close heavens - to make an appearance.  whatever and however it works - i think it will sincerely be 'a day.'  He says to be 'prepared' and not be 'sleeping.'  so - i take that to mean to go about our daily lives as though He could return at any moment or day. 

[ahinton]

it's all a conundrum to me - really.

Ah! - now we're getting somewhere! I daresay Thal will file that one for future reference, too...

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

My my, who needs drugs when we can talk to Pianistimo 

Now, please tells about the dinosaurs P.  We have got to assume that they lived died and were fossilised before Adam, since the Bible doesn't mention them, and therefor can't have existed in our time.  So when was it?  Wednesday afteroon, just after lunch and before tea ?

[ahinton]

My my, who needs drugs when we can talk to Pianistimo 

I can't answer that!

Now, please tells about the dinosaurs P.  We have got to assume that they lived died and were fossilised before Adam, since the Bible doesn't mention them, and therefor can't have existed in our time.  So when was it?  Wednesday afteroon, just after lunch and before tea ?

I understand and appreciate the tone of what you write here, but do bear in mind the very real risk that it will be taken literally, with the result that you will have ended up encouraging yet more of the same or similar!

The entire subject's abit of a dinosaur, if you ask me.

I think I'll ask susanistimo if she'll kindly consider learning a couple of my piano pieces; if by chance she agrees to do this, she really won't have time for all this stuff in addition...

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

I should be happy to learn one of your pieces, if they are any good 

[ahinton]

I should be happy to learn one of your pieces, if they are any good 

I should be happy to think that you would like to, as long as you don't expect me to comment about how good they might or might not be! I have only one piano work on CD so far (my other recorded works are not for piano). As you will note, however, Susanistimo has not yet expressed interest in taking the plunge and asking about playing any of them(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

I think chilli is better than sugar.

[ahinton]

I think chilli is better than sugar.

You mean like Bach is better than Chopin (or like Chopin is better than Bach?)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

between the ads at the bottom of this thread and having just read the thread - i am getting confused myself.  666  and honeyword and this about chili and sugar.  you all are messing up my brain.  and alstair daring me to learn a piece of his music (as if i could learn it and play it like jonathan powell, ahhahaa).  i'll tell you what i used to be good at.  i used to play the waldstein like nobody's business.  but, then i went on piano forum.  now, i'm a hopeless addict and i'm not even on drugs.  this is what can happen to you, people!

ok.  here's my take on the dinosaurs.  IF there was a creation before ours - it happened between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 - and the creation was flooded and frozen and thawed with the next created 'sun.'  asyncopated - where are you?  can a sun be replaced.  does this happen already in our universe?  there are many things i don't know.  therefore - what happened before adam and eve - i don't really know or have a clue.  we have fossilized remains - but the dating (which is often conflicting from textbook to textbook) is really wildly varying.

[mephisto]

You mean like Bach is better than Chopin (or like Chopin is better than Bach?)...

Best,

Alistair

I think it has more to do with salade.

[timothy42b]

when we talk about the seven days during creation,

You're getting way ahead of yourself.  You assume we all talk about seven day creations.  But you also assume we all talk about Adam and Eve.  The two don't go together.

There are two creation accounts, one in Genesis 1 and one in Gen 2.  There is a fair amount of contradiction between the two accounts, including the order or creation of plants and animals, etc. 

Genesis 1 has Six Day creation.  It does not have Adam and Eve.  Genesis 2 has Adam and Eve, it does not have Six Days.  At all. 

So, if you believe in Adam and Eve, you have no reason to worry about six literal 24 hour days.  Since the time is not specified, 4.5 billion years is fine.  If you do believe in Six Days, then you don't have Adam and Eve, and you don't have a starting point for counting generations, so you don't have 6,000 years of Jewish history to account for.  Either way a young earth is not required, scripturally.

You do have to have some rationale for reconciling two creation accounts (which very few Christians know exist, since they haven't actually read the Bible themselves.) 

[ramseytheii]

You're getting way ahead of yourself.  You assume we all talk about seven day creations.  But you also assume we all talk about Adam and Eve.  The two don't go together.

There are two creation accounts, one in Genesis 1 and one in Gen 2.  There is a fair amount of contradiction between the two accounts, including the order or creation of plants and animals, etc. 

Genesis 1 has Six Day creation.  It does not have Adam and Eve.  Genesis 2 has Adam and Eve, it does not have Six Days.  At all. 

So, if you believe in Adam and Eve, you have no reason to worry about six literal 24 hour days.  Since the time is not specified, 4.5 billion years is fine.  If you do believe in Six Days, then you don't have Adam and Eve, and you don't have a starting point for counting generations, so you don't have 6,000 years of Jewish history to account for.  Either way a young earth is not required, scripturally.

You do have to have some rationale for reconciling two creation accounts (which very few Christians know exist, since they haven't actually read the Bible themselves.) 

Fascinating!  I am going to read it right now.

Walter Ramsey

[wishful thinker]

For God's sake, why don't people just focus on the important.
For a Christian it is the Gospels that are important - not some of the more obscure (and lets face it unreliable) parts of the Torah.  [Are there any Jewish scholars out there that can tell us whether they literally believe the 6 days / Adam and Eve story?]

What you should be focusing on is this:

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
Hoc erat in principio apud Deum
Omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
In ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
Et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt

[ramseytheii]

For God's sake, why don't people just focus on the important.
For a Christian it is the Gospels that are important - not some of the more obscure (and lets face it unreliable) parts of the Torah.  [Are there any Jewish scholars out there that can tell us whether they literally believe the 6 days / Adam and Eve story?]

What you should be focusing on is this:

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
Hoc erat in principio apud Deum
Omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
In ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
Et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt

Wishful thinker, I think you are right, but unfortunately in this day and age it is wishful thinking.  In the fundamentalist wave sweeping Amerika, the so-called Bible literalists are promoting their conception as the only possible one.  I have casually gone through profiles at myspace.com to see several that say under interests or about me, "The Bible is the infallible word of God and there are no mistakes or contradictions."

Theologically speaking, that might be a useful hypothesis to start with when you have discovered what seems to be a contradiction, but that is rather different than just stating it, and having all circular arguments go back to Rome, as it were.  For Fundamenalists Christians in Amerika, the Old Testament is jst as important as the new, and for all of the latent anti-Semitism, they are still rabidly pro-Israel.

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

Wishful thinker, I think you are right, but unfortunately in this day and age it is wishful thinking.  In the fundamentalist wave sweeping Amerika, the so-called Bible literalists are promoting their conception as the only possible one.  I have casually gone through profiles at myspace.com to see several that say under interests or about me, "The Bible is the infallible word of God and there are no mistakes or contradictions."

Theologically speaking, that might be a useful hypothesis to start with when you have discovered what seems to be a contradiction, but that is rather different than just stating it, and having all circular arguments go back to Rome, as it were.  For Fundamenalists Christians in Amerika, the Old Testament is jst as important as the new, and for all of the latent anti-Semitism, they are still rabidly pro-Israel.

Walter Ramsey

What you write here is correct. If only it weren't...

Best,

Alistair

[pianolist]

I'm getting very confused here. God seems to have made a number of sets of male/female human pairs, doesn't he? Genesis I:27 seeks to tell me that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." This was apparently on the sixth day, because it comes between verses 23 and 31, which mark the ends of the respective days.

Then Genesis II:7 tells me that the LORD God made a man, apparently on the eighth day, or at least after the seventh, so this must be a different man from the one who was created as part of a male/female pair on the sixth day. This eighth day man seems to have been rather lonely, so in verses 21 and 22 a woman was created. In verse 19 the man, who has hitherto been unnamed, becomes Adam without any apparent reason, and nowhere in chapter II is the woman called Eve. For that we have to wait until Genesis III:20.

I must say that Genesis II does have the six-day creation by implication, because it states that God, who had worn Himself out by creating the heavens and earth, rested on the seventh day.

But I'm even more confused by Genesis II:4, because that verse says that the LORD God made the heavens and the earth in only one day. No wonder He was tired! But what happened to the other five days?

Atheism is so much simpler, and I don't have to worry about capital letters for the third person.

[pianowolfi]

One of my favorite bible contradictions: Genesis 4, 17  "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." Now if there really were only two persons in the beginning, where did this wife come from? She just appears suddenly from nowhere (Of course for me this is not an argument against faith).

[jre58591]

One of my favorite bible contradictions: Genesis 4, 17  "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." Now if there really were only two persons in the beginning, where did this wife come from? She just appears suddenly from nowhere (Of course for me this is not an argument against faith).

perhaps his wife was eve or some sister eve gave birth to later on. perhaps the bible didnt want to mention incest, for its against the faith.

[ahinton]

I'm getting very confused here. God seems to have made a number of sets of male/female human pairs, doesn't he? Genesis I:27 seeks to tell me that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." This was apparently on the sixth day, because it comes between verses 23 and 31, which mark the ends of the respective days.

Then Genesis II:7 tells me that the LORD God made a man, apparently on the eighth day, or at least after the seventh, so this must be a different man from the one who was created as part of a male/female pair on the sixth day. This eighth day man seems to have been rather lonely, so in verses 21 and 22 a woman was created. In verse 19 the man, who has hitherto been unnamed, becomes Adam without any apparent reason, and nowhere in chapter II is the woman called Eve. For that we have to wait until Genesis III:20.

I must say that Genesis II does have the six-day creation by implication, because it states that God, who had worn Himself out by creating the heavens and earth, rested on the seventh day.

But I'm even more confused by Genesis II:4, because that verse says that the LORD God made the heavens and the earth in only one day. No wonder He was tired! But what happened to the other five days?

Atheism is so much simpler, and I don't have to worry about capital letters for the third person.

One of my favorite bible contradictions: Genesis 4, 17 "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." Now if there really were only two persons in the beginning, where did this wife come from? She just appears suddenly from nowhere (Of course for me this is not an argument against faith).

Two very valid and interesting takes here. I'm not sure of your belief status, "pianowolfi", but there's no doubting the importance of the thoughts of an atheist who's read his Bible. Unlike some members of certain types of proto-Christian persuasion, non-believers such as our goodly pianolatheist actually take the Bible (or at least those parts of it which - pace Thal's earlier notable remarks - have come down to us) seriously, rather than abjectly as some kind of article of blind faith (as in "it says so in the Bible therefore it must be a universal truth"). The Bible, as we have it today, notwithstanding its myriad omissions, editions and lost-in-translations by the generation, remains an important, if somewhat non-comprehensive, historical document and, as such, should be taken as seriously as pianolatheist evidently does; those who have instead somehow persuaded themslves to treat it absolutely literally - and as nothing more than an allegedly complete collection of immutable truths admitting of no others and as the ultimate arbiter of "life, the universe and everything" (sorry!) - seem to me to demean it quite unconscionably.

Anyway - to return directly to the thread title itself - I reckon that "pianistimo"'s days must be longer even than God's, otherwise she'd simply never find sufficient time to post all that she does...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

perhaps his wife was eve or some sister eve gave birth to later on. perhaps the bible didnt want to mention incest, for its against the faith.

Maybe - maybe not; who can now say?

It remains salutary, however, to remember when discussing any of these details that the notion of "the Bible" as most of us now understand it did not apply at the time when the various authors of what we now call "the Bible" were engaged in writing their individual contributions; after all, Jesus Christ Publishing (Bethlehem) Inc. did not set out to commission a multi-author symposium under the general title "The New Testament", did it?

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

Two very valid and interesting takes here. I'm not sure of your belief status, "pianowolfi"

I believe what I see and feel. I am interested in the truth. I am a non confessional Christian. I think one day the deeper sense of the bible will come together with the most advanced results of modern science. And i think they will both loose nothing from that. It took a while to decipher the human genome as I have read. So it will take also a while to decipher the scripture and discover the deeper meaning of it.

[ahinton]

I believe what I see and feel. I am interested in the truth. I am a non confessional Christian. I think one day the deeper sense of the bible will come together with the most advanced results of modern science. And i think they will both loose nothing from that. It took a while to decipher the human genome as I have read. So it will take also a while to decipher the scripture and discover the deeper meaning of it.

Whilst some cynics might see this stance as one wherein you "hedge your bets", I happen to regard it as a sensible and pragmatic approach. Nothing worth attaining is ever likely to be attained without time, energy and effort. I should know, even though it is not always possible to succeed...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

The problem is, do you have a method to 'decipher' the bible? When the genome project started they did. And eventhough it took a lot of time to finish the project, even after just a little time they had already made progess. Now has one made any progress deciphering the bible the last 2000 years?

Believe what you want, but I don't understand how you can support this view. You say because you see and feel. Feelings are irrelevant. But what do you see?

[pianowolfi]

The problem is, do you have a method to 'decipher' the bible? When the genome project started they did. And eventhough it took a lot of time to finish the project, even after just a little time they had already made progess. Now has one made any progress deciphering the bible the last 2000 years?

Believe what you want, but I don't understand how you can support this view. You say because you see and feel. Feelings are irrelevant. But what do you see?

For me as a musician (and of course as a human being as well) feelings are not irrelevant at all. They can be like a sixth sense. Again I'd like to quote Goethe's Faust: "Feeling is all in all; Name is but sound and smoke"
And with seeing I mean also seeing in the sense of seeing with thoughts. Like "Ah i see!", if something is very clear on an intellectual layer.

[adagio1]

Well well.  There are so many experts on topics like this.  How about other words.  ??CONCUBINE has always been puzzling for me.  Let me see now.  Possible meanings.  No matter how you slice it they provided sex.  Same with SLAVES..... they had little to say about who had sex with them....... (see Genesis..... same place you find all that stuff on DAYS)  So I said to my wife after we read Genesis together....... seems slaves are OK may I have a few CONCUBINES..?)   Too bad some people demand an explanation for everthing.   Sort of takes the humour out of life.   A few Concubines for me..... I would just be following the Bible..... or would I

Hope you all have a good DAY..   

[pianistimo]

ok.  putting the concubine issue aside for a moment - i think pianolist has noticed an important point.  that being genesis 2:4 '...in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.' perhaps we do need a jewish scholar to look that 'day' up to determine what it means - but as i take a day - then it was a day.  it wasn't a thousand years.  or millions.  He just made it.  and, then began creating life on it.  maybe the planning stages took longer than the creation.  after all - all He was doing was going around saying 'let there be...' 

the seeming contradictions are really not there, imo.  God, in the statutes to the israelites made it plain that sex with sisters was out, that sex with you wife's mother was out, that sex with your wife's sister was out.  and, of course, since he said nothing about handmaids (or concubines /maids) that Abraham was the first to 'test' and see what would happen.  obviously, he didn't do it until Sarah said he could.  that must have meant that he valued her opinion.  she wanted a child - and she couldn't have one at first.  now, who was guiding abraham to have so many children at this point?  God, probably!  after all, he could have made sarah so fertile that she had many more children.  i think this story is about faith - that people often give up because things look hopeless.  and, yet - sarah is commended for her faith (even though she laughed at first about having a son in her 90's).  this, to me, proves that God tests each one of us to see if we will believe Him - even if circumstances look abysmal.

now, regarding all these children - they were children of blessing - despite also being handmaids of sarah and handmaids of hagar.  at this point of our human history, imo, God was populating the earth with a blessed man (who had faith).  nowdays, i don't think it would necessarily prove a man's faith to have more than one wife.  especially if the legal system we live under says no.  the bible says to obey the laws of the 'king' or country that you live in - and pay taxes to whom taxes are due - so we do what is 'right' according to our system of government. 

also, when two people are married they become 'one.'  this is spoken of as a mystery.  only people who stay one can fully understand it.  there's no comparison.  you're not wishing you were with 'doll #2' when you're with doll #1 or the same for women with men.  you really love the person and care about their feelings and wouldn't want to hurt them.  there's only the rare women that willingly share their husbands (probably somewhere's in salt lake city) and don't have cat fights. 

that's all folks.  the bible is explainable the further you read it.  sometimes you have to understand (like with genesis) that the bible is repeating a story the second time (gen chapter 1 and chapter 2 and so on) and adds more detail.  God is telling about the seventh day - but then jumps back in time in verse four to explain how it was in the day he created the heavens and earth- so we are returning for more detail to the story.  how God actually made adam on the sixth day - and also his wife eve.  (though nameless?)  he only named her after she got into trouble because he needed someone as a scapegoat if it happened the next time.  if more women came into the picture - just saying 'woman' wouldn't work.

now, i think that cain DID marry a sister.  so what!  back then - the laws hadn't been instituted because there weren't enough people to worry about.  but, then - i wasn't there - and it could be he had a plastic doll somehow.  but,t hen she wouldn't have had any children. 

[pianowolfi]

The problem is, do you have a method to 'decipher' the bible?

Unfortunately not. But there have been several approaches over the centuries. Afaik the bible is at least in parts enciphered. E.g. revelation. I'm not sure about the word εσημανεν (Greek)"significavit" (Latin) which appears in Revelation but i think it could be interpreted as "encipher".

Revelation 1,1: Apocalypsis Jesu Christi, quam dedit illi Deus palam facere servis suis quae oportet fieri cito, et significavit, mittens per angelum suum servo suo Joanni.

Greek: 1αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

English (King James version) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

So at least Revelation can't be taken literally in the sense of a modern book. If you go on reading there John says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" That is obviously a vision. John was, like Paul who claimed similar things, obviously clairvoyant. That means he was in direct communication with the spiritual world (or spiritual dimension of the world). So for to understand what he says you need some knowledge of how to interpret messages from this spiritual dimension. And the whole Revelation is written like that: mysterious, enciphered. One of the many attempts to decipher the bible is the one of Agrippa von Nettesheim. E.g. he explains the meaning of the famous number 666 as demon of the sun, sorath, which is taken from the Kabbalah, afaik. At least a better explanation than others. People like him have an enormous background, i can't quote more here, just set a link:
https://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm It's a huge subject though

[thalbergmad]

now, i think that cain DID marry a sister.  so what!  back then - the laws hadn't been instituted because there weren't enough people to worry about.  but, then - i wasn't there - and it could be he had a plastic doll somehow.  but,t hen she wouldn't have had any children. 

Possilby the most ridiculous post ever.

Do you really think that Cain had to have sex with his sister coz there were no other women.

You need help baby.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

and it could be he had a plastic doll somehow. 

Now that's funny 

[ramseytheii]

that's all folks.  the bible is explainable the further you read it.  sometimes you have to understand (like with genesis) that the bible is repeating a story the second time (gen chapter 1 and chapter 2 and so on) and adds more detail.  God is telling about the seventh day - but then jumps back in time in verse four to explain how it was in the day he created the heavens and earth- so we are returning for more detail to the story.  how God actually made adam on the sixth day - and also his wife eve.  (though nameless?)  he only named her after she got into trouble because he needed someone as a scapegoat if it happened the next time.  if more women came into the picture - just saying 'woman' wouldn't work.

This could be fun.  There has got to be somewhere a compiled list of contradictions in the Bible.  I am going to throw a few out there that I know of as a test, and see if they are really explainable.

As a disclaimer, some of these contradictions, I have already been given a pretty convincing explanation as to why they are not so; but I want to see if pianitisimo can stumble upon the answer.  They shalt range from easyeth to hardesteth.

Matthew 20:30
"Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"

Luke 18:35-38
" As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening.  They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."

 He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

---

Mark 15:25
"It was the third hour when they crucified him."

John 19:14
"It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews."

---

Matthew 1
 1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
    2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
         Isaac the father of Jacob,
         Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
       3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
         Perez the father of Hezron,
         Hezron the father of Ram,
       4Ram the father of Amminadab,
         Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
         Nahshon the father of Salmon,
       5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
         Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
         Obed the father of Jesse,
       6and Jesse the father of King David.
      David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
    7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
         Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
         Abijah the father of Asa,
       8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
         Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
         Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
       9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
         Jotham the father of Ahaz,
         Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
       10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
         Manasseh the father of Amon,
         Amon the father of Josiah,
       11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
    12After the exile to Babylon:
         Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
         Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
       13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
         Abiud the father of Eliakim,
         Eliakim the father of Azor,
       14Azor the father of Zadok,
         Zadok the father of Akim,
         Akim the father of Eliud,
       15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
         Eleazar the father of Matthan,
         Matthan the father of Jacob,
       16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Luke 3:21
 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
      the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
      the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
      the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
    25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
      the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
      the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
      the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
      the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
    27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
      the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
      the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
      the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
      the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
    29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
      the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
      the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
      the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
      the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
    31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
      the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
      the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
      the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
      the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
    33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
      the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
      the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
      the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
      the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
    35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
      the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
      the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
      the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
      the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
    37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
      the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
      the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
      the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
      the son of God.


-----


But actually, since Jesus father wasn't Joseph, none of this geneaology would seem to be relevant anyways, isn't that true?

Walter Ramsey

[pianowolfi]

These two genealogies are very interesting. I know about the difference. There have been probably two different Jesus'. That's what the bible claims indirectly with these two genealogies. One from Solomon's and one from Nathan's line. In some old paintings there are two boys plus John the Baptist. But what sense would it have to make up this whole thing if Joseph was not the father? I think he was.

[pianolist]

i wasn't there - and it could be he had a plastic doll somehow. but, then she wouldn't have had any children.

Who says the doll was female?

[pianistimo]

dear ramseytheii,

if you note the two passages of matthew and luke- we're talking two different situations.  one had two blind men - and the other one.  what is stopping JEsus from healing in two different places similar situations?  luke 35 says 'as He was approaching Jericho...'  the other passage says 'as they were going out from jericho....'

mark 15 and john 19 - are different as well - because in mark we're talking nine o clock (third hour), noon (sixth hour)  darkness over the entire land, and finally death around three o'clock (ninth hour).  john 19:14 context - a carrying of the cross before we get to the nine o'clock am crucifixion.  simon of cyrene carries it for Jesus part way.  if you read both accounts you can see jesus wasn't yet crucified until later down in john (after carrying cross) so he couldn't have been carrying the cross at the sixth hour.  one possible reason for this is a displacement of the scripture as we later see Pilate making fun of Christ in verse 21 - 22 and then confirming what he had written despite their protests!  verse 14 would be better placed after verse 24 or so.

 (vs 21-22)'and so the chief priests of the jews were saying to pilate, do not write, 'the king of the jews; but that He said 'I am king of the jews.' pilate answered, 'what i have written i have written....' continue until verse 24 - which talks about roman soldiers:

(vs. 24) 'they said therefore to one another, let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'they divided my outer garments among them and for my clothing they cast lots.''

(vs 14) it was about the sixth hour,  and he (pilate) said to the jews 'behold, your King!'  immediately the sky became dark - as pilate was suddenly in a position of darkness as to understanding the redeeming power of Christ. also, in both accounts - the sixth hour was after they cast lots for his clothing.  pilate was effectively saying - look at your half-naked Christ - how could he be God?  noon was the time that the entire land turned dark (a time when there should have been the most light).  mark 15:33 'and when the sixth hour had come, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour.'  this was after the lots had been cast.

in the genealogy - one traces him from abraham and the other one back to adam who is then called 'the Son of God.'  so ultimately we are all sons of God thru adam.  thereby nixing any sort of precision on who wants to be included in the genealogy.  and, yet - there are many consistent names throughout - as with zerubbabel and abraham (and many more).  heb 7 explains that mechesidek (king of salem) whom abraham paid tithes was 'without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually.'

now, that would explain why - when Jesus was told 'your mother and brothers are outside waiting to talk to you...' that he said 'who are my mother and my brothers?  those who hear the word of God and do it....' 

also, hebrews 7:14 says 'for it is evident that our Lord was descended from judah, a tribe with reference to which moses spoke nothing about priests.  and this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. for it is witnessed of Him, 'Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.'   it goes on to explain this further through the rest of the chapter.

[ramseytheii]

in the genealogy - one traces him from abraham and the other one back to adam who is then called 'the Son of God.'  so ultimately we are all sons of God thru adam.  thereby nixing any sort of precision on who wants to be included in the genealogy. 

So you are saying, that the geneaology was not possible to be included in a precise way?  In other words, that it is inherently incorrect, or at best a guess?  Help us to understand, pianitisimo!

Walter Ramsey
\

[pianistimo]

the genealogy of luke is actually mary's genealogy and is documented many places because of the facts we have about mary.  at this web site it explains more:

www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html

interestingly, the beginning of this chronology starts out in luke 3:23 with 'and when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being SUPPOSEDLY the son of joseph...(but then when it goes to ELI or HELI - that is mary's father) so it should say 'son-in-law.'

so, the bible gives us the genealogy of joseph in matthew and the genealogy of mary in luke.  this makes sure that the line is accordingly the 'line of David.'  they meet in the middle!

one thing that i am not exactly sure on is if Jesus Christ did carry the genetic line of mary as a human.  We will never know because He already ascended.  but, if He is God and has no beginning -we know that it was through her womb that He passed and not necessarily that He needed genetic coding.  after all, God is God.  and yet 'the promised seed...' implies that there is some kind of proof that He is of the Davidic line.  otherwise there would be no 'seed.'  that would be mary's line - since He was adopted by Joseph.  there are places in the OT that mention a 'redeemer' from the line of David.  that is how they knew to look for Him as a baby in Bethlehem. he was born a jew. even his location was foretold!  he looked like he belonged to the family he was with - most likely - and probably had the same looks as his half-brothers and half-sisters. 

something in john makes me think of this genealogy as more for the davidic kingly line - than the actual 'birth' line of Jesus.  He had no beginning and has no end.  john 3:6 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'  now that is a scripture for us because we know that Jesus was born into the world as a man - and yet has no 'beginning of days.'  in the Old Testament Jesus Christ was 'The Word'  that became flesh.

[ahinton]

Never mind God; Pianistimo's days are the longest of all. They must be. (Muss es sein; es muss sein).

Susanistimo dear - can't you just for a moment (if for no longer) at least give some consideration to Thal's (and others') suggestion that you broaden your reading material? I'm sure we'd all stand at least some chance of benefitting from the consequences were you to do this.

On another front:
"Pen" (what I write with)
"tea" (what I occasionally drink when not imbibing coffee or something far more "sinful")
"cost" (what the pen, ink, tea, coffee, mortgage and all other things set me back)
"al" (what those who know no better have an unfortunate tendency to call me).
Don't try adding all this up at home (as the old cliché goes); the sum would self-evidently be disastrous...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear alistair,

to make you happy - i did read some other material this morning.  happened to be the reader's digest.  are you satisfied - or must i read something else?  occasionally i read the paper. 

you are surely joking about pentecostalism and me.  i have never been inside a pentecostal church - although i'm sure that people who worship as pentecostals have as much right to feel the spirit move literally and spiritually - as people who look for overcome snake bites and things like that.

i see God already - so i don't need more proof of the Spirit.  susan

[cmg]

Dear Pianistimo, would you kindly consider AH's suggestion that you broaden your reading regarding spiritual issues?

Particularly regarding "time."  You have such a mistaken notion of "time."  It is an invention of the human mind.  It truly, literally, doesn't exist.  This silly measurement and marking of things.  Nature knows nothing of this.  Only change.  As in seasons:  more light?  more warmth?  Ah, growth!!  Cooler?  Less rainfall?  Ah, bloom time!!! 

The counting of months and years is such a conditioned-intellgence thing.  Human, not animal, and devoid of any logic or wisdom.

Please, just investigate the Zen notion of Now, the Present.  The past is dead, gone, kaput.  The future, by definition, does not exist -- it is just a projection of the past and cannot, therefore, contain anything orignal.  Yes?  So, all we have is the Moment.  Now. 

What was created, when and by whom is immaterial.  We only have NOW.  The rest -- the past, endless speculation -- is tedious intellectualization that gets us nowhere.  The future does not exist.

Be free of this, dear Pianistimo!  Burn the bra of religious dogma!!  Rejoice in the moment.  It is quite literally all we have. 

(And get yourself a copy of Philip Kapleau's "The Three Pillars of Zen," as an antidote to that crippling, infantilizing, mind-warping pap that is passed off by the Reader's Digest.  I know two editors there and even they admit to the depressing Amerikan, right-wing propaganda that this magazine publishes.  You deserve better food for your mind.)

[pianistimo]

agreed that reader's digest might not be the end all of enlightened reading.  i shall visit a barnes and noble again.  but, the problem is that usually i am glommed onto the music section and start reading about mozart as if he was moses.  do you see my problem?  i want to learn.  i want to be free to a certain extent.  but, not free of God.  God is my reason for existing.  why would i want an animals mentality.  my cat isn't even a zennist.  she is very straightforward and direct about time. if it is  5 am - it is time to go out.  she is a ritualist.

i have to admit to a certain feeling of 'stability' in time.  if there were no time - i would feel very insecure.  for one thing - i already have a hard time remembering what day it is.  suddenly if it weren't any day at all - i would at once be free and also terribly troubled.  it would be like entering an alzheimer's phase before experiencing the fullness of mid-life.

[ahinton]

dear alistair,

to make you happy

What a kind thought!

- i did read some other material this morning.  happened to be the reader's digest.  are you satisfied - or must i read something else?  occasionally i read the paper.

You mean other than the Bible, I presume. It's not for me to be "satisfied" or otherwise about your reading activities or choice of reading matter, anyway.

you are surely joking about pentecostalism and me.

Yes - that was indeed the "joke" part of my not entirely jokey reference thereto.

i have never been inside a pentecostal church

Well. I wasn't to know that before you confirmed it, of course...

- although i'm sure that people who worship as pentecostals have as much right to feel the spirit move literally and spiritually - as people who look for overcome snake bites and things like that.

Snake bites? Snake oil? Hmm... (and no need to explain the former, as I did read the refernce to it earlier); it seems to me to be not entirely dissimilar to Sorabji's remark that a "cultured pearl" and a "cultured person" often bore the same resemblance to the real thing in each case...

i see God already - so i don't need more proof of the Spirit.  susan

Do you own and use a digital camera? (just curious!). 40% is usually a high enough proof for most spirits, in my view (which is why I find those "cask strength" whiskies to be too alcoholised and insufficiently tasty). No, seriously, I'm not seeking to undermine even that part of your faith that persuades you that you can "see" God, just like "pianowelsh" claims to do, on the mere basis that I do not and cannot understand it at all...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

i see God already - so i don't need more proof of the Spirit.  susan

What does he look like then?

You are truly blessed amongst women.

Thal

[pianistimo]

God looks like us - otherwise He wouldn't have said 'made in My image and likeness.'  and 'whatever you do to the least of these - you are doing to Me.'  so - i figure that i see God in every person i meet.  especially those who are not held in high esteem.  i try to be nice to the person who is destitute or needs someone to talk to, although i do agree one can be 'hoodwinked' easily.  but, rarely by street people.  usually by professional bankers.  (glad to hear that you didn't agree with interest rate policies either - on some other thread - espeically in regards to fully paying off an account and then suddenly owing some amount of $200 or more to close the account after paying off the balance.  and, being told it is something or other that they charge to do business during the time that the account is active - interest accrued beyond the monthly payments - of which you know nothing about).

you just never know who you will meet.  perhaps an angel and not even know it.  i feel blessed to exist.  that is enough.  i will feel even more blessed when i fully regain my memory of 20 years ago.  piano is good.  watching the news - it says that people who actively use their brains don't lose them as fast as people who do not challenge their brains with puzzles or question things.