Burned at the stake for the Bible
- Thread starter Nick the Pilot
- Start date
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Joe,
You said,
"Yes it's true. In my family, the generation before me, were not allowed to read the Bible."
--> I have only recently become aware of this surprising Catholic prohibition. But I was recently able to put it to good use. There are a lot of Mexican-Americans in my part of the USA. As you probably know, most Mexican-Americans are Catholic.
Well, one day, I was talking to a Mexican-American man at work. I got him to talk a little bit about his church. As soon as he said, "...Bible study...," I asked him, "You are not Catholic, are you?"
He said, "Why, no, as a matter of fact, I'm not. That's amazing. How did you know?"
I said, "Because Catholics do not have Bible study classes." (He was shocked to hear such a thing.)
Which leads us to wondering why Catholics spend years going to Sunday School, yet never attend Bible Study classes. And it also leads us to wondering why the people of your father's generation were not even allowed to read a Bible in English. Or why last century was chosen as a time to lift such a ban.
We await Thomas' explanations.
"Maybe we should start a thread on whether it's Paul or Peter that has the bulk of influence on RCC thought. I vote Paul."
--> I strongly encourage you to start such a thread. Go for it.
You said,
"Yes it's true. In my family, the generation before me, were not allowed to read the Bible."
--> I have only recently become aware of this surprising Catholic prohibition. But I was recently able to put it to good use. There are a lot of Mexican-Americans in my part of the USA. As you probably know, most Mexican-Americans are Catholic.
Well, one day, I was talking to a Mexican-American man at work. I got him to talk a little bit about his church. As soon as he said, "...Bible study...," I asked him, "You are not Catholic, are you?"
He said, "Why, no, as a matter of fact, I'm not. That's amazing. How did you know?"
I said, "Because Catholics do not have Bible study classes." (He was shocked to hear such a thing.)
Which leads us to wondering why Catholics spend years going to Sunday School, yet never attend Bible Study classes. And it also leads us to wondering why the people of your father's generation were not even allowed to read a Bible in English. Or why last century was chosen as a time to lift such a ban.
We await Thomas' explanations.
"Maybe we should start a thread on whether it's Paul or Peter that has the bulk of influence on RCC thought. I vote Paul."
--> I strongly encourage you to start such a thread. Go for it.
Nick the Pilot:-
You seem so keen and hellbent to make Thomas accountable for everything the Catholic church has done in the past. How can he have all the answers for the actions of people in previous generations???!!! He can only offer an opinion which he has done.
Time to take a chill pill dude and lessen the witch hunt?
You seem so keen and hellbent to make Thomas accountable for everything the Catholic church has done in the past. How can he have all the answers for the actions of people in previous generations???!!! He can only offer an opinion which he has done.
Time to take a chill pill dude and lessen the witch hunt?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Fundamentalism is basically declaring what is essential, (or infallible,) and what is therefore beyond criticism. (Reminds me of the actions of the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2, especially the part about being sent "strong delusion.")
Only lies and untruth needs this kind of protectionism in order to be propped up. The truth can survive honest criticism, whereas beloved untruths will be exposed if allowed to be exposed to honest criticism.
Only lies and untruth needs this kind of protectionism in order to be propped up. The truth can survive honest criticism, whereas beloved untruths will be exposed if allowed to be exposed to honest criticism.
Curious, as my family, who come from Ireland, follow the tradition of having a Family Bible, in which are recorded births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, entries into orders, etc., so that prohibition must be local ...
The Bible itself is massive, a huge coffee table thing, gilt edged pages, illustrations, commentaries ...
Thomas
I would have thought, as someone who professes a faith in karma, that you would have taken the trouble to assure yourselves of the facts, before offering your uninformed and erroneous opinion to others ... surely tyhere is a karmic debt accrued here through your irresponsibility?
If not, perhaps you can inform me when and where this prohibition was introduced, and when it was lifted, as it no longer applies?
That is not true. Perhaps you have not heard of RCIA: the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults — look it up on the web to see how many resources are available. Every parish will have some sort of RCIA programme — if not, then one should complain.
Again, I can only speak for Europe — it is becoming apparent that America seems to be following it's own path currently.
Because Sunday School is founded on Scripture Study, at least, it was in my experience ... over 40 years ago now ... and is today, as in some Churches the children leave before the Liturgy of the Eucharist to take part in their own children's liturgy, in which the Mass is explained, which includes looking at the Biblical texts which form the basis of the Rite.
Thomas
There will always be those who dispute it ...
... and again I wonder, if it's not for you, then walk away. I often wonder if critics are motivated by jealousy: "If I cannot find certitude, then I insist you can't either"
OK. Let me remind you, an apology from you for your offensive comments got lost in all this also.
Yes.
My point is, you haven't got the answer, you've got an error which you think is the answer.
Leaving the simple, and obvious answer, once you have the archaelogical data, that Chapters 1 and 2 derive from different oral traditions within the Hebrew heritage as a whole, there is also the later metaphysical commentary in the Christian Tradition. I am sure that Jewish tradition also has the most profound commentary and insight into these texts.
As you have stated quite forcefully before, that you're not interested in any interpretation of a text other than your own and operate a 'closed mind' policy, I offer this for anyone else who might be reading this.
Genesis 1:26-27 talks of the principle of a given order of being — a nature — a universal nature ('man and woman' being primary determinations within the universal), created in the image and likeness of the Deity.
Genesis 2:7 talks of the manifestation of the principle — a particular and individual instance of a universal nature.
Thus Genesis 1:26 discusses human nature, which the Fathers termed ousia, and Genesis 2:6 discusses human individuality, which the fathers termed hypostasis.
OK, but anyone who takes the word of an 'idiot', to use your expression, is himself suspect, surely?
Again I must remark at the coincidence of you meeting the one priest who's somehow got his notions of Scriptural exegesis completely wrong, and yet an error to which you would later so strongly subscribe, and one unique to The Theosophical Association ... you've got to admit that is remarkable. (As for two Catholics priests to hold the some erroneous idea, that suggests one leading the other astray.)
more importantly however, is that if your priest was indeed a subscriber of Theosophical Association doctrine, then we have a more important issue, and that is one of a betrayal of trust, in fact the betrayal is threefold — he has betrayed the Church, his parish, and himself, according to the vows he would have taken.
Thomas
A real, not historical, risk
Nick —
In continuing the original topic of this thread, something occurs to me:
If, as you have said, the Secret Doctrine disclosed to HPB predates all the world's spiritual texts, then disclosure of the content of this text must have been forbidden — those entrusted with its secrecy must have been so instructed as a process of initiation, sworn to secrecy before they knew what the secret was ... and provision must have been for the necessary steps to be taken in the event of that secret being compromised.
The fact that sacred texts exist, which you say derive from, but are corruptions of, this Secret Doctrine, but which make no reference to it, either by supporters or critics, must mean that active and definite steps were taken to sever all ties as far as the world at large was concerned.
And as no steps were taken to redress the promulgation of such pernicious errors that derived from this process, I see another burden of responsibility on its keepers which has not been shouldered ... bad karma, as far as I can see.
So let me ask you a question of similar order:
Was dissemination of the Secret Doctrine forbidden?
Were steps taken to ensure it remained secret?
I must insist on an answer, as from my point of view, if the answer is in the affirmative, then your inquiry, and the way you choose to express it, borders on hypocrisy. As karma is evidently important to you, I cannot in good conscience be party to increasing the karmic debt that such a hypocritical path would inevitably accrue.
I hope you can see that, for me, this issue is one of serious import, and takes precedence over all other concerns.
So far I have answered all your questions ... I think it only fair you answer these of me.
I mean ... I could respond that the practice of executing those who sought to possess the Sacred Scriptures was an echo and continuation of the policy of the guardians of the SD in keeping the doctrine secret.
Thomas
Nick —
In continuing the original topic of this thread, something occurs to me:
If, as you have said, the Secret Doctrine disclosed to HPB predates all the world's spiritual texts, then disclosure of the content of this text must have been forbidden — those entrusted with its secrecy must have been so instructed as a process of initiation, sworn to secrecy before they knew what the secret was ... and provision must have been for the necessary steps to be taken in the event of that secret being compromised.
The fact that sacred texts exist, which you say derive from, but are corruptions of, this Secret Doctrine, but which make no reference to it, either by supporters or critics, must mean that active and definite steps were taken to sever all ties as far as the world at large was concerned.
And as no steps were taken to redress the promulgation of such pernicious errors that derived from this process, I see another burden of responsibility on its keepers which has not been shouldered ... bad karma, as far as I can see.
So let me ask you a question of similar order:
Was dissemination of the Secret Doctrine forbidden?
Were steps taken to ensure it remained secret?
I must insist on an answer, as from my point of view, if the answer is in the affirmative, then your inquiry, and the way you choose to express it, borders on hypocrisy. As karma is evidently important to you, I cannot in good conscience be party to increasing the karmic debt that such a hypocritical path would inevitably accrue.
I hope you can see that, for me, this issue is one of serious import, and takes precedence over all other concerns.
So far I have answered all your questions ... I think it only fair you answer these of me.
I mean ... I could respond that the practice of executing those who sought to possess the Sacred Scriptures was an echo and continuation of the policy of the guardians of the SD in keeping the doctrine secret.
Thomas
Hi Thomas,
I want to go back to a question I asked earlier, and that was if you have read the Bible cover to cover. You might have thought that I was being somewhat "short" with that question, and I assume from your posting here that you have studied all of the text. Do all of the books of the Bible hold the same weight?
Joe
There is a family Bible around, it's from my grandfather's generation. Since it's a family treasure and fragile it's not out for all to view. It also contains some of the family history. ( fwiw: he, my grandfather is also from Ireland.) Would I be wrong to think that your family Bible is also a family treasure and is not the one used for any serious study?
I want to go back to a question I asked earlier, and that was if you have read the Bible cover to cover. You might have thought that I was being somewhat "short" with that question, and I assume from your posting here that you have studied all of the text. Do all of the books of the Bible hold the same weight?
Joe
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Seattlegal,
You said,
"Fundamentalism is basically declaring what is essential, (or infallible,) and what is therefore beyond criticism. ... Only lies and untruth needs this kind of protectionism in order to be propped up."
--> Wow, that is fantastic: Infallibility needs fundamentalism to hide behind. I had never thought of it that way before. Thanks for sharing that.
You said,
"Fundamentalism is basically declaring what is essential, (or infallible,) and what is therefore beyond criticism. ... Only lies and untruth needs this kind of protectionism in order to be propped up."
--> Wow, that is fantastic: Infallibility needs fundamentalism to hide behind. I had never thought of it that way before. Thanks for sharing that.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas,
I see that you are denying that the church has, in the past, forbidden English-speaking people to read or possess Bibles written in English, or that this prohibition was lifted last century. I see that you are also denying that the church comdemned to death the man who first printed a Bible in English because he printed it. This is the very theme of the TV show that I watched. I am quite surprised that you are denying this.
You have mentioned that parts of the Ancient Wisdom (the name given to what can be called 'Theosophical teachings') have been prohibited from being given out publicly. That is true.
(1) This prohibition comes from the august beings who actually wrote the original Bible — the seven deities who created the Earth and humanity, and their helpers (the same deities mentioned in Genesis itself).
(2) As the centuries have gone by, these deities are slowly allowing the full story of the Ancient Wisdom to be told. When we become fully actually actualized as human beings, we will be given the full story.
You said,
"So far I have answered all your questions ... I think it only fair you answer these of me."
--> Thomas, you really do take the cake. When I point out mistakes in the Bible, you laugh in my face, ridicule me, and act condescending towards me:
"ROFL! Ah dear! If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny! How anyone can derive the creation of a single species twice, from Scripture, I have no idea ... but then the world is full of surprises."
You characterize an open-minded Catholic priest as being an idiot, merely because he points out how the Bible says the human race was created twice (which it does). You characterize me as being as idiot because I agree with that open-minded and correct Catholic priest.
Do not worry. I will not allow this to deter me from continuing my discussions with you. I will continue to drag these discussions back to where they need to be — discussions on the issues.
I see that you are denying that the church has, in the past, forbidden English-speaking people to read or possess Bibles written in English, or that this prohibition was lifted last century. I see that you are also denying that the church comdemned to death the man who first printed a Bible in English because he printed it. This is the very theme of the TV show that I watched. I am quite surprised that you are denying this.
You have mentioned that parts of the Ancient Wisdom (the name given to what can be called 'Theosophical teachings') have been prohibited from being given out publicly. That is true.
(1) This prohibition comes from the august beings who actually wrote the original Bible — the seven deities who created the Earth and humanity, and their helpers (the same deities mentioned in Genesis itself).
(2) As the centuries have gone by, these deities are slowly allowing the full story of the Ancient Wisdom to be told. When we become fully actually actualized as human beings, we will be given the full story.
You said,
"So far I have answered all your questions ... I think it only fair you answer these of me."
--> Thomas, you really do take the cake. When I point out mistakes in the Bible, you laugh in my face, ridicule me, and act condescending towards me:
"ROFL! Ah dear! If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny! How anyone can derive the creation of a single species twice, from Scripture, I have no idea ... but then the world is full of surprises."
You characterize an open-minded Catholic priest as being an idiot, merely because he points out how the Bible says the human race was created twice (which it does). You characterize me as being as idiot because I agree with that open-minded and correct Catholic priest.
Do not worry. I will not allow this to deter me from continuing my discussions with you. I will continue to drag these discussions back to where they need to be — discussions on the issues.
Hi Joe —
We were regular Churchgoers, and sometimes prayed as a family — not regularly — but that's about it. The point I wanted to make however, was possession of the Bible is not forbidden, as Nick insists, nor is its study — but then he's making as much mischief as possible anyway — but it is axiomatic that study should be informed — history is evidence enough of how wrong people can be!
Acts 8:30-31
"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
I would say anyone who thinks the Bible says nothing beyond what it says to them is ... misguided ... from the earliest days, it was understood that Scripture is unfathomable, inexhaustible, ever new ... I could cite pages of references ... Not to mention Lectio Divina.
Then again, in our defence, I think Catholics have a more Christocentric than Scripture-centric faith — we believe in the Real Presence both in the Eucharist and in our lives — then the 3 year cycle of Liturgical readings, the Divine Office, the Rosary. But I'm not trying to wriggle off the hook!
On my course, for example, my tutors lament the lack of Scriptural knowledge. And again, some of our reference books in Scripture Study are from Protestant authors: C.H. Dodd, N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn ...
So what's the cure? The Church would love everyone to study the Bible, just check out the number of published commentaries available, but can She make us do it, without a dogmatic statement?
I'm lucky enough to attend a Dominican Priory as my parish church (it's not local to me, I travel). There the homily is always Scripture-focussed, and often quite testing ...
Yes:
No:
So yes, they all hold the same weight because they comprise One Book, which is Inspired of God and Reveals His Will and His plan of our salvation, be it in the record of the words and deeds of Christ, or be it in the experience of the faithful, and their testimony of that Revelation.
But some books are undoubtedly more 'concentrate' than others ... the Psalms, for instance, hold a special place in Christian devotion, both Catholic and Protestant, and are more 'direct' than, say, Proverbs.
(BTW: I saw your note on Paul ... it's his Jubilee in the Catholic calendar, and a subject I'm studying at the moment, I thought of starting a thread, 'who is Paul'?)
In closing — with reference to the topic at hand:
Thomas
That would be about right. I have no recollection of my parents ever getting the Bible off the shelf.
We were regular Churchgoers, and sometimes prayed as a family — not regularly — but that's about it. The point I wanted to make however, was possession of the Bible is not forbidden, as Nick insists, nor is its study — but then he's making as much mischief as possible anyway — but it is axiomatic that study should be informed — history is evidence enough of how wrong people can be!
Acts 8:30-31
"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
I would say anyone who thinks the Bible says nothing beyond what it says to them is ... misguided ... from the earliest days, it was understood that Scripture is unfathomable, inexhaustible, ever new ... I could cite pages of references ... Not to mention Lectio Divina.
Then again, in our defence, I think Catholics have a more Christocentric than Scripture-centric faith — we believe in the Real Presence both in the Eucharist and in our lives — then the 3 year cycle of Liturgical readings, the Divine Office, the Rosary. But I'm not trying to wriggle off the hook!
On my course, for example, my tutors lament the lack of Scriptural knowledge. And again, some of our reference books in Scripture Study are from Protestant authors: C.H. Dodd, N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn ...
So what's the cure? The Church would love everyone to study the Bible, just check out the number of published commentaries available, but can She make us do it, without a dogmatic statement?
I'm lucky enough to attend a Dominican Priory as my parish church (it's not local to me, I travel). There the homily is always Scripture-focussed, and often quite testing ...
No — I am a catholic, remember. Now, of course, I want to ... but my course is so intense. Currently we're doing St Paul, so it's a few key texts, plus commentaries ... so each book of the bible requires me to read or reference half a dozen other books ... when my course is finished ...
Oooh, there's a good question! Answer: Yes ... and no ...
Yes:
Dei Verbum — the RCC statement on Scripture, Tradition and Revelation.
No:
Ditto.
So yes, they all hold the same weight because they comprise One Book, which is Inspired of God and Reveals His Will and His plan of our salvation, be it in the record of the words and deeds of Christ, or be it in the experience of the faithful, and their testimony of that Revelation.
But some books are undoubtedly more 'concentrate' than others ... the Psalms, for instance, hold a special place in Christian devotion, both Catholic and Protestant, and are more 'direct' than, say, Proverbs.
(BTW: I saw your note on Paul ... it's his Jubilee in the Catholic calendar, and a subject I'm studying at the moment, I thought of starting a thread, 'who is Paul'?)
In closing — with reference to the topic at hand:
Dei Verbum
Thomas
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas,
We had the exchange,
"The church condemns its own Pope? Really? --> Yes, really."
--> Then why didn't that Pope access his god-given infallibility, and stop the condemnation? If the church condemns its own Pope, then it comes down to a question of who is more correct, the Pope or everyone else in the church. The Pope's access to infallibility tells us you should side with the Pope and tell everyone else that they are wrong.
Why did God allow such a heretic to become Pope — such a man should never have been allowed so close to 'God's own infallibilty.'
We had the exchange,
"The church condemns its own Pope? Really? --> Yes, really."
--> Then why didn't that Pope access his god-given infallibility, and stop the condemnation? If the church condemns its own Pope, then it comes down to a question of who is more correct, the Pope or everyone else in the church. The Pope's access to infallibility tells us you should side with the Pope and tell everyone else that they are wrong.
Why did God allow such a heretic to become Pope — such a man should never have been allowed so close to 'God's own infallibilty.'
M
mee
Guest
Like the Beroeans, we should ‘examine the Scriptures daily’
Acts 17;10-11
Acts 17;10-11
Hi Joe —
Forgot to mention that the translation most recommended by my tutors is the RSV. I use the RSV, the NJB and the Douai Rheims (which influenced the KJV).
Catholic editions, of course.
My tutors also recommend I learn Latin and Greek. Our Course Director is fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Ugaritic (a pre-Hebrew cuniform language)! He sits on an international committee of Bible scholars from all denominations to continually improve existing translations.
I have a Bible for prayer ... and another for basic study, with my own marks, notes, underlines, comments, post-its ... etc., etc.
I also reference the Greek and Latin texts online.
Thomas
Forgot to mention that the translation most recommended by my tutors is the RSV. I use the RSV, the NJB and the Douai Rheims (which influenced the KJV).
Catholic editions, of course.
My tutors also recommend I learn Latin and Greek. Our Course Director is fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Ugaritic (a pre-Hebrew cuniform language)! He sits on an international committee of Bible scholars from all denominations to continually improve existing translations.
I have a Bible for prayer ... and another for basic study, with my own marks, notes, underlines, comments, post-its ... etc., etc.
I also reference the Greek and Latin texts online.
Thomas
Excellent Nick, as per form, you ask a question, I answer yes, you say "I see you say 'no'."
I am very surprised you believe everything you see on TV. If that's their claim, it's inaccurate and sensationalist. The truth is he was accused of heresy, not printing.
+++
Then your hypocrisy is evident: You are allowed control of knowledge, no-one else is.
And you have have the audacity to claim you have no doctrine, no dogma, no obligation? Shame on you.
The point is you justify and endorse the prohibition, and presumably all and any steps to enforce it.
But at least I do not practice hypocrisy towards you.
But it's your own fault, really. You have the habit of informing others on Catholic matters about which you obviously know little or nothing, and then defend that ignorance as illumination when brought to your attention. So you will understand if I assume the same rule applies to everything you profess to know.
By so doing you are in the habit of spreading error, rumour and propaganda to the detriment of Catholicism (and myself), so I assume you habitually do the same with regard to Scripture.
If you desist, I'll respect that — something I have demonstrated consistently throughout. If you continue to offer offence, error and make mischief on the Christian Board, and I shall continue to point that out. I am under the obligation of my profession:
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice."
+++
No, idiot was your term, not mine. Idiot was never in my mind. Whatever the mind of the priest, if indeed he existed at all, which frankly I doubt, by the collar he wears he has accepted an obligation to the Church, his parishoners and God. if he feels he cannot observe that obligation, he should stand down from his position. Any other action is a betrayal of trust.
Such a betrayal then effects the good, by association, so as you can imagine, there are a few words that spring to mind: hypocrite, liar, fraud ... but idiot was not among them. If he was an idiot, I could excuse him.
It also says that man is made out of mud. Do you believe you are actually made of mud? Do you dare step outside when it rains?
So I'm saying that if you assume the literal word of Scripture is all that God and man intended, then your degree of ignorance of Scripture is truly something to behold.
Nope, I characterise you as many things, but not idiot. I am not taken in by your games, and nor, I suspect, is anyone else. I continue to indulge you in them, because the more you say, the more you reveal your agenda.
I think the paramount issue is your hypocrisy, for until that is sorted, everything you say is held in suspension, your motive suspect.
"But woe to you ... hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter." Matthew 23:13
That sums up your doctrine, it seems to me.
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thomas, this may be worth looking at.
According to the Council of Trent, the sacraments are said to "contain the grace which they signify" and to have the capacity to "confer grace." The straightforward implication is that the Church is in control of the "sacred thing" (St. Thomas) itself, not just the outward ceremonial proceedings.
I'd say this is remarkable ideology. The importance of a sacrament lies in its ability to give grace. What we see in the Catholic view is a [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] human application /distribution of a Divine Gift.[/FONT]
N
Nick_A
Guest
Theory and practice are two different things. The exoteric church is limited to theory.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas,
You asked,
"It also says that man is made out of mud. Do you believe you are actually made of mud?"
--> I am delighted you have asked. Let me explain. As we all know, humanity was created on Day Six of the Creation Story (according to Genesis). However, this does not refer to the creating of physical bodies, it only refers to the creating of human 'souls.'
The reference to mud is actually a reference to the attaching of human 'souls' to human bodies for the first time. ("mud" = the physical world, physical bodies.) This is what the Genesis writers meant, but they let their use of symbolism make the story unrecognizeable.
After the story of mud (the attaching of human 'souls' to human bodies), Genesis immediately launches into the story of Adam and Eve, which is the story of snakes pursuing fruits, which is the story of humanity's first experiments with sex. (Sadly, it turned out badly, which is what the story of Adam and Eve is really trying to tell, but again, the Genesis writers let their use of symbolism make the story unrecognizeable.)
Now you know why the Bible literally says humanity was created twice, but it just means human souls were created first, then human bodies were attached to those souls later.
If you have any other questions about the Bible, please feel free to ask.
I also see that you are starting to question what the Bible says, especially the parts that do not make sense ("Man is made out of mud?"). Good for you.
You asked,
"It also says that man is made out of mud. Do you believe you are actually made of mud?"
--> I am delighted you have asked. Let me explain. As we all know, humanity was created on Day Six of the Creation Story (according to Genesis). However, this does not refer to the creating of physical bodies, it only refers to the creating of human 'souls.'
The reference to mud is actually a reference to the attaching of human 'souls' to human bodies for the first time. ("mud" = the physical world, physical bodies.) This is what the Genesis writers meant, but they let their use of symbolism make the story unrecognizeable.
After the story of mud (the attaching of human 'souls' to human bodies), Genesis immediately launches into the story of Adam and Eve, which is the story of snakes pursuing fruits, which is the story of humanity's first experiments with sex. (Sadly, it turned out badly, which is what the story of Adam and Eve is really trying to tell, but again, the Genesis writers let their use of symbolism make the story unrecognizeable.)
Now you know why the Bible literally says humanity was created twice, but it just means human souls were created first, then human bodies were attached to those souls later.
If you have any other questions about the Bible, please feel free to ask.
I also see that you are starting to question what the Bible says, especially the parts that do not make sense ("Man is made out of mud?"). Good for you.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Oh, Thomas, one more thing. Humanity was 'created' on Day Six, yet Genesis 2:5 says.
"...there was no man to till the ground."
Bible.com
...which, if interpreted literally, is absurd. But the reference to ground is again referring to physical bodies which did not exist on Day Six, which is what the story is really about. (Since humans did not have physical bodies at the time of Genesis 2:5, Genesis 2:5 is technically and 'literally' correct.)
Hope it helps!
"...there was no man to till the ground."
Bible.com
...which, if interpreted literally, is absurd. But the reference to ground is again referring to physical bodies which did not exist on Day Six, which is what the story is really about. (Since humans did not have physical bodies at the time of Genesis 2:5, Genesis 2:5 is technically and 'literally' correct.)
Hope it helps!