The passage has stirred the imagination for many centuries. Ancient Midrash attempted to imbue the simple wording with mystical meaning, changing coats of skin to coats of "light". The Targums as well sought to load the verse with additional meaning by saying the skin was the serpants. Ancient Xtian writers played with it as well. In reality there is nothing to suggest deep symbolism. IMO the Yahwist author simply had his anthropomorphic God make suitable Cardhartt clothes for them as a story detail consistant with their banishment into the harsh outside realities, nothing more. Kind of like clothing a chain gang prisoner with his orange prison jumpsuit before taking him out to break rocks.
First Kill
by cameo-d 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
mustang
Fig leaves, I'm sure? How would you like a pair of sandpaper underwear ?
Mustang
-
searcher
Does it make sense that god would be the first murderer?
Given the nature of the god of the bible, yes, it makes sense.
-
possible-san
cameo-d,
Reply to my question.
I have not judged yet whether you are a hypocrite.
If you make a fool of others,
You will be made a fool of from others next time. -
PrimateDave
@ possible-san: konichiwa! The concept of this thread is a "rhetorical question." cameo-d is not being a hypocrite.
Addressing the topic at hand, there is no reason to believe that Elohim (translated as "God" or "gods") or YHWH cared all that much about the animals. Consider the fact that, according to the Flood narrative, Elohim or YHWH destroyed the entire animal kindom just because humans were hurting each other, and presumably the animals as well. This merely shows the flawed logic behind Judeo-Christian religion: to help you God has to kill you. In other words, to prevent wickedness, God also eliminates the innocent victims.
Plot holes notwithstanding, the post-Flood warning that animals would now fear humans because God gave humans permission to eat them was an explanation that primitive Bronze Age cultures could understand because of their superstitious nature. This narrative is most likely far older that the rest of the Bible itself. Imagine an extended family of nomadic herders sitting around a fire at night telling stories. A popular story might be "why animals are afraid of humans." The old story teller would start out saying that at one time, long ago, all animals and humans were at peace...
Dave -
cameo-d
possible-san,
You are missing my point. I am not talking about killing animals for food. That is a very different subject.
I am talking about "god" being the first killer mentioned in the Bible because he killed an animal to make clothes for Adam and eve.
A Creator would not destroy his masterpiece. A Creator would be very capable of making clothing from something other than an animal.
If humans are created in the same image as the Creator, that should mean not just physical characteristics, but feelings and emotions as well.
The book of Enoch says it was the evil angels, the Nephilim, who first began to hurt the animals. I am asking the question, do you think its possible that this "god" is actually an evil spirit and not our Creator? Look at his actions.
Also, no one wanted to take responsibility for their actions.
Adam: "Eve gave it to me, so I ate it."
Eve: "well, the old serpent talked me into it."
God: "Well, heck, why don't we just give Fido a whippin for it and let him take the blame!
Somebody's got to pay for the damages to my tree. Make up your mind. Off with your head, or will it be Fido?"
So, the family dog ends up taking the punishment. "god" probaly roasts and eats the dog and makes a muu-muu and loin cloth for the perpertraters.
Really, it's still the same way today as far as some of these rituals. It's based on the fact that people will not take responsibility for their actions as well as illogical tradition.
Take for instance, voodoo. The houngan (voodoo priest) takes a live chicken and rubs it all over the sinner seated in proxy before him. This act supposedly transfers the sins of the sinner (or the whole group if he is sitting in proxy) to the chicken. Now how can this even be logical? If I rub my cat on my head, does this mean that my cat is now guilty of something I did wrong? According to tradition, it must be a magical transfer. Anyway, then, the chicken is now imbued with sin and killed as a sacrifice.
People freak out about this type of animal killing. But hey! Guess what? The Jews do the same thing. Voodoo has Judaeo-Christian roots.
A few days before Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) the priest will have a sinner sit in proxy for the whole congregation. He takes a chicken and swings it over their head three times while chanting some phrase about god accepting the chicken as a sacrifice for our sins. It is called Kaparot. And it is done in this day and age right here in the USA.....still.
These rituals are absurd and illogical and really, like something left over from days of the neanderthal.
I just cannot conceive that our true creators would teach and participate in killing animals. Nor that our creators would be so limited in options to make a covering for humans.
Have you never wondered if this god could have been one of the evil angels?
Also, maybe this is how Abel got the idea to sacrifice an animal. I don't think he would have thought of doing it had he not seen it done and known that it appeased this deity. What do you think?
-
possible-san
Hi! Dave,
Mucho gusto.I cannot speak English.
Therefore, even if there is a thing which I would like to say, I cannot express appropriately.
So, please take the meaning of my words into consideration appropriately.
And when you want to tell me correctly, please use Japanese.cameo-d is not being a hypocrite.
I think that you do not understand the thing which I would like to say.
I said.After seeing the reply from you, I judge whether you are a hypocrite.
It is not "you judge".
And he(cameo-d) has not yet replied to my question.Addressing the topic at hand, there is no reason to believe that Elohim (translated as "God" or "gods") or YHWH cared all that much about the animals. Consider the fact that, according to the Flood narrative, Elohim or YHWH destroyed the entire animal kindom just because humans were hurting each other, and presumably the animals as well. This merely shows the flawed logic behind Judeo-Christian religion: to help you God has to kill you. In other words, to prevent wickedness, God also eliminates the innocent victims.
I understand the matter which you want to say.
But, I am not touching on the topic at all.
In particular about the flood, I have not made reference at all.
And I had stated like this.I think that most of description of the Genesis is a "fable" (symbol).
Therefore, Adam and Eve are not the talks of an actual history.The talk of the flood is also the same.
-
cameo-d
And he(cameo-d) has not yet replied to my question.
possible-san,
I did reply to your question. My reply is the post just above your last post.
This is what you said:
Are you a person who does not kill any animal?
I have not killed the animal until now.
However, I eat beef, pork, and chicken.Don't you eat?Moreover, have not you eaten them once until now?
After seeing the reply from you, I judge whether you are a hypocrite.
And this is my answer:
possible-san,
You are missing my point. I am not talking about killing animals for food. That is a very different subject.
I am talking about "god" being the first killer mentioned in the Bible because he killed an animal to make clothes for Adam and eve.
A Creator would not destroy his masterpiece. A Creator would be very capable of making clothing from something other than an animal.
If humans are created in the same image as the Creator, that should mean not just physical characteristics, but feelings and emotions as well.
This was my question and the point of my intended subject here:
The book of Enoch says it was the evil angels, the Nephilim, who first began to hurt the animals. I am asking the question, do you think its possible that this "god" is actually an evil spirit and not our Creator? Look at his actions.
These are the reasons that lead me to come to this question.
Also, no one wanted to take responsibility for their actions.
Adam: "Eve gave it to me, so I ate it."
Eve: "well, the old serpent talked me into it."
God: "Well, heck, why don't we just give Fido a whippin for it and let him take the blame!
Somebody's got to pay for the damages to my tree. Make up your mind. Off with your head, or will it be Fido?"
So, the family dog ends up taking the punishment. "god" probaly roasts and eats the dog and makes a muu-muu and loin cloth for the perpertraters.
Really, it's still the same way today as far as some of these rituals. It's based on the fact that people will not take responsibility for their actions as well as illogical tradition.
Take for instance, voodoo. The houngan (voodoo priest) takes a live chicken and rubs it all over the sinner seated in proxy before him. This act supposedly transfers the sins of the sinner (or the whole group if he is sitting in proxy) to the chicken. Now how can this even be logical? If I rub my cat on my head, does this mean that my cat is now guilty of something I did wrong? According to tradition, it must be a magical transfer. Anyway, then, the chicken is now imbued with sin and killed as a sacrifice.
People freak out about this type of animal killing. But hey! Guess what? The Jews do the same thing. Voodoo has Judaeo-Christian roots.
A few days before Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) the priest will have a sinner sit in proxy for the whole congregation. He takes a chicken and swings it over their head three times while chanting some phrase about god accepting the chicken as a sacrifice for our sins. It is called Kaparot. And it is done in this day and age right here in the USA.....still.
These rituals are absurd and illogical and really, like something left over from days of the neanderthal.
Again I ask:
I just cannot conceive that our true creators would teach and participate in killing animals. Nor that our creators would be so limited in options to make a covering for humans.
Have you never wondered if this god could have been one of the evil angels?
And this question leads on to another question:
Also, maybe this is how Abel got the idea to sacrifice an animal. I don't think he would have thought of doing it had he not seen it done and known that it appeased this deity. What do you think?
-
possible-san
cameo-d,
You offended me.
Do you understand it?
You had better not offend me further.And you should apologize for your impolite remark to me.
There is your true problem.I will write the reply to your "trivial reply" later.
-
possible-san
cameo-d,
First, I say.
You are a sly guy.I did reply to your question.
No.
You have not replied to my question at all.
The meaning which I have said is not a "reply" but "answer".I said.
I have not killed the animal until now.
However, I eat beef, pork, and chicken.
Don't you eat? Moreover, have not you eaten them once until now?The meaning of my question is "Do you eat meat?"
What is necessary is just to answer "I eat it", if you eat it.You said.
You are missing my point. I am not talking about killing animals for food. That is a very different subject.
It is very absurd "lame excuse".
"very different subject"?
What Nonsense!
You have to kill an animal, in order for you to eat meat.And you said.
The book of Enoch says it was the evil angels, the Nephilim, who first began to hurt the animals. I am asking the question, do you think its possible that this "god" is actually an evil spirit and not our Creator? Look at his actions.
This explanation is also absurd.
Do you make a fool of the people of "ex- Jehovah's Witnesses"?
The book "Insight on the Scriptures" is described like this.*** it-1 p. 729 Enoch ***
Enoch is not the writer of the “Book of Enoch.” This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C.E.Why does this book become evidence?
And you said.
Have you never wondered if this god could have been one of the evil angels?
What do you think?
Do you make fun of me?
You said like this, before asking my present belief."god presence within" is new age metaphysical crap. You are trading one lie for another if you believe that concept.