Bible help

Okay im just going to state this I am an athiest and wanted to read the bible to edjewmacte myself. Anyways...

So I'm reading the book of genisis since well it's the first part and what not and I'm at the part after the flood where Noah gets drunk and gets nakey Ham walks in tells his brothers that their dad is naked and the brothers cover him up. I get that part so far but this is where I go "what the hell?" Noah wakes up finds out ham looked at his nakedness and Noah tells god to punish his son. :|

What did Ham do wrong? O_O Is this where I interpret? I looked it up and no site has told me any stuff just "theories" that it's an act of homosexuality which like comon how'd he know his father was naked in the closed tent. If it had said Ham walked in saw his father naked and made fun of him or was aroused then i'd understand the punishment but what did he do? :shock:

its a man made book based on a man made "god" to make other men obey, dont bother trying to figure any of it out

You should stick to Greek creation myths, they're written very well, and they're more entertaining.

its a man made book based on a man made "god" to make other men obey, dont bother trying to figure any of it out

-DirtySanchez-

if their was truely a god he wouldnt of tld his writers to make such an open ended book with holes throughout, if the bible was real would you honestly think it would leave such important things open to debate instead of having the answers throughtout?-DirtySanchez-

It's just shameful to look at another man naked.Agent-Zero

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"]if their was truely a god he wouldnt of tld his writers to make such an open ended book with holes throughout, if the bible was real would you honestly think it would leave such important things open to debate instead of having the answers throughtout?XxspritexX

In the culture in which it was originally written, it probably made enough sense that the justification for it did not need to be written down. Areas in the Bible in which explanations are given are usually those that were written for a different culture that would not have understood what was being described (some of the Gospel stories are like this). That would not have been the case here.

You should stick to Greek creation myths, they're written very well, and they're more entertaining.

no_more_fayth

In the culture in which it was originally written, it probably made enough sense that the justification for it did not need to be written down. Areas in the Bible in which explanations are given are usually those that were written for a different culture that would not have understood what was being described (some of the Gospel stories are like this, which clearly lay out fulfilled prophecies). That would not have been the case here.

GabuEx

So basically the **** we "need" to know will be explained in depth and the stuff we sorta need to know but not really will be like this one. gotcha.

Well if my dad passed out naked from being drunk somewhere and instead of covering him up I ran oustdie to my two brothers and said "Hey, dad got drunk and passed out naked!" I don't think my dad would like it very much. Since probably passing out naked from being drunk was probably a very dishonorable thing to do and was something you didn't want people to know about.

So Adam and Eve have 2 sons. Cain, and Abel. Who do they have children with? 8)Nibroc420

The also had a son named Seth.

Genesis 5:4 - The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. And remember these kids didn't die easily so a 200 year old one could be with a 300 year old one too.

Hmm that makes a little more sense but seriously! :cry: I feel bad for cannan

So basically the **** we "need" to know will be explained in depth and the stuff we sorta need to know but not really will be like this one. gotcha.

XxspritexX

Well, no, not really. There's no "we" involved here; we didn't exist when any books in the Bible were written. To give an example of what I mean, the Gospel According to Mark describes Jewish customs in some detail, which is done because it was written for a Gentile audience who probably would not have understood them if they hadn't been described. On the other hand, the Gospel According to Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, so it assumes a prior understanding of such things. It's likely that the story of Noah was in the second category: its intended audience would have already had a grounding in the culture which it describes, so such description or explanation would have been unnecessary.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] their mom, and when the world floods who does noah and his sons have kids with? his daughter(s?)-DirtySanchez-

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] their mom, and when the world floods who does noah and his sons have kids with? his daughter(s?)-DirtySanchez-

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]So Adam and Eve have 2 sons. Cain, and Abel. Who do they have children with? 8)Nibroc420

Um, following God's word does not imply emulating the behavior of every single person who appears in the Bible.

[QUOTE="XxspritexX"]

Hmm that makes a little more sense but seriously! :cry: I feel bad for cannan

So basically the **** we "need" to know will be explained in depth and the stuff we sorta need to know but not really will be like this one. gotcha.

GabuEx

Well, no, not really. There's no "we" involved here; we didn't exist when any books in the Bible were written. To give an example of what I mean, the Gospel According to Mark describes Jewish customs in some detail, which is done because it was written for a Gentile audience who probably would not have understood them if they hadn't been described. On the other hand, the Gospel According to Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, so it assumes a prior understanding of such things. It's likely that the story of Noah was in the second category: its intended audience would have already had a grounding in the culture which it describes, so such description or explanation would have been unnecessary.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] their mom, and when the world floods who does noah and his sons have kids with? his daughter(s?)GabuEx

Um, following God's word does not imply emulating the behavior of every single person who appears in the Bible.

from what i remember the guy didnt just look, he also went and told others that he found him naked.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] And aren't we supposed to follow the word of the bible? Which would result in incestuous behavior?Hatiko

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

from what i remember the guy didnt just look, he also went and told others that he found him naked.

Aussieguy10169

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] indeed-DirtySanchez-

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="XxspritexX"]

Hmm that makes a little more sense but seriously! :cry: I feel bad for cannan

So basically the **** we "need" to know will be explained in depth and the stuff we sorta need to know but not really will be like this one. gotcha.

XxspritexX

Well, no, not really. There's no "we" involved here; we didn't exist when any books in the Bible were written. To give an example of what I mean, the Gospel According to Mark describes Jewish customs in some detail, which is done because it was written for a Gentile audience who probably would not have understood them if they hadn't been described. On the other hand, the Gospel According to Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, so it assumes a prior understanding of such things. It's likely that the story of Noah was in the second category: its intended audience would have already had a grounding in the culture which it describes, so such description or explanation would have been unnecessary.

I'm not sure I understand the question. :P

The Bible is a collection of writings compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years, written in a different language and different cultures. Current scholarship holds that it probably was even more spaghetti-like than it currently appears, too; it's highly likely that the Pentateuch had multiple authors and was strung together much later into single books (observe for example the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2) and that the Gospels (except for Mark) were a compilation of writings as opposed to wholly original writings unto themselves. There are other interesting tidbits, as well, such as Isaiah almost certainly being the product of two authors, one picking up from the other much later and claiming to be the same person. It also contains a number of different types of texts, some being pure stories, some being historical accounts, some being just poetry. It's not a book in the standard sense of the term and reading it as one is a rather hopeless endeavor.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] And aren't we supposed to follow the word of the bible? Which would result in incestuous behavior?Nibroc420

Um, following God's word does not imply emulating the behavior of every single person who appears in the Bible.

If one robotically reads the text while ignoring the context under which various commands are given, then yes, one might arrive at that conclusion. That would be a rather intellectually lazy way to go about things, though.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] And aren't we supposed to follow the word of the bible? Which would result in incestuous behavior?Nibroc420

Um, following God's word does not imply emulating the behavior of every single person who appears in the Bible.

Leviticus 18:6-18 - 6 "None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive."

Ah yes. It condones incest.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]So Adam and Eve have 2 sons. Cain, and Abel. Who do they have children with? 8)-DirtySanchez-

Their wives not his daughters...

Genesis 7:7

7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

Nibroc420

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Um, following God's word does not imply emulating the behavior of every single person who appears in the Bible.

GabuEx

If one robotically reads the text while ignoring the context under which various commands are given, then yes, one might arrive at that conclusion. That would be a rather intellectually lazy way to go about things, though.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] indeed-DirtySanchez-

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

Aren't we all related on some level? The bible says that you can't have any close relative relations.

[QUOTE="Aussieguy10169"]

from what i remember the guy didnt just look, he also went and told others that he found him naked.

XxspritexX

hmmmm ill have to look into that cause i remember he didnt just tell his brothers.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] i never said you had to do everything the same as back then and frankly if incest went on then, then it would still be going on today as we would all be related thanks to coming from noah his son/?s and daughters/? would we not still all be related all be it on like a 100th cousin type of levelHatiko

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] i never said you had to do everything the same as back then and frankly if incest went on then, then it would still be going on today as we would all be related thanks to coming from noah his son/?s and daughters/? would we not still all be related all be it on like a 100th cousin type of levelHatiko

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

Agreed with Hatiko. Nibroc makes no sense. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. If this bible is untrue and we all evolved from a single celled organism "then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level." So bible true or untrue we are still all very distantly related.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

No not indeed. The code as specified in leviticus was not constructed yet. So there was no problem with incest at the time. By your logic we should all go build an ark too. Following the word of God doesn't mean reenacting everyhting that took place.

Hatiko

Aren't we all related on some level? The bible says that you can't have any close relative relations.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Christians "Follow" the Bible. The Bible condones Incest, god did nothing to condemn incestuous behavior like he did with human sacrifice. Therefor, God does not condemn incest. So incest should be allowed? :roll: religious are silly imo.Nibroc420

If one robotically reads the text while ignoring the context under which various commands are given, then yes, one might arrive at that conclusion. That would be a rather intellectually lazy way to go about things, though.

"I know you are but what am I" is an argument that I thought we had left behind on the school playground.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Indeed. If the Bible is truth, then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level. So... Does that mean that no-matter who i decide to have kids with, those kids will end up deformed?-DirtySanchez-

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

I'm not very educated on this subject but aren't these things defects when the fetus is being developed?

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Indeed. If the Bible is truth, then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level. So... Does that mean that no-matter who i decide to have kids with, those kids will end up deformed?fbstar57

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

Agreed with Hatiko. Nibroc makes no sense. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. If this bible is untrue and we all evolved from a single celled organism "then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level." So bible true or untrue we are still all very distantly related.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

Hatiko

I'm not very educated on this subject but aren't these things defects when the fetus is being developed?

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] i never said you had to do everything the same as back then and frankly if incest went on then, then it would still be going on today as we would all be related thanks to coming from noah his son/?s and daughters/? would we not still all be related all be it on like a 100th cousin type of level-DirtySanchez-

Aren't we all related on some level? The bible says that you can't have any close relative relations.

Well we have to look at what these people were like. Adam and Eve had the purest of all DNA. And by the time we get to Noah and his kids (who had wives) their DNA was also very pure also. The lifespan of people before the flood was very high (not as long as Adam)giving some credence to the fact that their DNA was still somehwat good due to the fact that their longer lifespan meant that they were healthier.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Aren't we all related on some level? The bible says that you can't have any close relative relations.

Hatiko

Well we have to look at what these people were like. Adam and Eve had the purest of all DNA. And by the time we get to Noah and his kids (who had wives) their DNA was also very pure also. The lifespan of people before the flood was very high (not as long as Adam)giving some credence to the fact that their DNA was still somehwat good due to the fact that their longer lifespan meant that they were healthier.

[QUOTE="fbstar57"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

Nibroc420

Agreed with Hatiko. Nibroc makes no sense. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. If this bible is untrue and we all evolved from a single celled organism "then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level." So bible true or untrue we are still all very distantly related.

I don't really know the scientologist origins of life beliefs but even so, would those aliens not share a common ancestor as well? In that case we would still be distantly related. I can't see any way that all human life would not be distantly related unless life randomly appeared in two separate areas and somehow both separate initial forms of life became humans which I would imagine would be extremely unlikely.

Well we have to look at what these people were like. Adam and Eve had the purest of all DNA. And by the time we get to Noah and his kids (who had wives) their DNA was also very pure also. The lifespan of people before the flood was very high (not as long as Adam)giving some credence to the fact that their DNA was still somehwat good due to the fact that their longer lifespan meant that they were healthier.

Hatiko

Wait, what? What does "pure DNA" mean? Genetic deformities come from mutated genes, not from "impure" DNA from their parents.

[QUOTE="fbstar57"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Look around today. Are we all deformed? Our gentic buildups are different enough that as long as we don't have relations with close relatives whose DNA is too similar, nobody is going to get deformed.

Nibroc420

Agreed with Hatiko. Nibroc makes no sense. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. If this bible is untrue and we all evolved from a single celled organism "then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level." So bible true or untrue we are still all very distantly related.

Topic : "Bible help"

We aren't talking about those so this response really didn't make any sense. If those are right then they are right, but we aren't talking about those. That's like someone saying "Why aren't oranges red" then someone comes in and goes "Well apples are" just simply because the apple is a fruit also doesn't mean it has a place in the conversation.