About Cain and Able, and Evolution

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok right, I think I'm following you now.

Levitical law isn't perfect, and can be changed. Even though the word of God is forever, his law can change just like you need to change the priest once the old one pass away. But then how can we trust Levitical law at all? How do we know which laws God still intends us to follow? I mean some people try to claim that Leviticus 18:22 isn't valid anymore... so if God's law is relative, how do we know these people aren't correct when they say that Leviticus 18:22 isn't valid any longer.

I mean Leviticus 18:6 to 18:16 clearly states that no form of incest should take place, but if God at one point found incest acceptable, what is to say he don't find or found homosexuality acceptable at one point as well? Or to tie back to my original theory about Cain, Abel and the monkeys, how do we know that God always held Leviticus 18:23 as a law, and didn't make an exception to the rule that man should not sleep with animals in order for Cain and Abel to breed without having sex with their sisters?
 

First, the realization needs to be made of the fact that God changes his requirements (laws) according to his overall plan (e.g. Law of Moses, the old covenant, was superseded by the new covenant), and that his overall plan is centered around Jesus Christ.  And his laws will change again during the 1000 year reign of Christ, and it will change again once the new heaven and new earth are created. His laws will change until we reach final perfection, just as Christ is.  So, your initial position that God does not change his laws is contradicted by scripture, otherwise we’d still be in our sins and required to sacrifice animals.

So, IMO, the entire bible needs to read and interrupted as a plan to bring us into the perfection of Christ. 

As to the question regarding if bestiality was possibly allowed by God prior to the Law of Moses, the following passage makes it clear that it wasn’t

Gen 2:  18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
      But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


Notice how the account regarding Adam naming the animals is sandwiched in between the two statements of "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him" and “But for Adam no suitable helper was found”….God realized Adam needed a mate and then proceeded to have Adam observe every kind of animal, and after Adam viewed and named every animal, the declaration was made that among the animals no suitable helper for Adam was found…"not found" implies a search, so part of the reason, aside from naming, that God presented all the animals to Adam was to make Adam realize that none of the animals met his needs.  And once Adam realized this, God made a woman from Adam’s own flesh as a mate.

So, bestiality was presented in Gen ch 2 as a possible path for Adam to take, but it was rejected as unsuitable for Adam, thus God made Eve....or, a better way to put may be to say that once the need for Adam to have a mate was established, but before a mate was actually made, God made Adam realize that none of the animals were suitable canidates for a mate.

[John Dibble]

So... I should break yours instead? Interesting. I'll consider that.

Why don't you just do what I do when I'm mad... break your alarm clock.

So you're the bastard who broke my alarm clock. You're really in for it now!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with using their terms and language in this case is that it continues to let them live in ignorance of what the theory actually states, which is not helpful at all.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

But if God could put Adam to sleep and create a wife for him out of his rib, rather than having him mate with an unsuitable animal, why didn't he do the same for Adam and Eva's children, rather than to have them mate with eachother, which according to Lectivus God doesn't find suitable either?

So... I should break yours instead? Interesting. I'll consider that.

Why don't you just do what I do when I'm mad... break your alarm clock.

So you're the bastard who broke my alarm clock. You're really in for it now!

Oh shi... p *Runs*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with using their terms and language in this case is that it continues to let them live in ignorance of what the theory actually states, which is not helpful at all.
[/quote]

That is a fair point, and I guess you're probably right. I will phrase it differently in the future.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But if God could put Adam to sleep and create a wife for him out of his rib, rather than having him mate with an unsuitable animal, why didn't he do the same for Adam and Eva's children, rather than to have them mate with eachother, which according to Lectivus God doesn't find suitable either?

This was before the Law of Moses was given, so it doesn't matter what Leviticus said.  In fact, Sarah being Abraham's half-sister would have also been contrary to the Law of Moses (compare Gen 20:12 with Lev 18:9 and Lev 20:17).  God also gave Noah every kind of meat to eat, which was also not in accordance with the Law of Moses, and the New Testament changes the dietary laws again and reverts back to the freedom of Noah's diet.

God is not seeking uniformity of every single law across every covenant, otherwise there would be no purpose in having different covenants for they would all have the same laws and regulations.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Matthew 5:17-5:20 would disagree with you. Jesus himself said that he had no intention to change the laws of the prophets. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This passage would seem to suggest that you are incorrect, and that the law of the prophets is forever, or at least until after the world has been undone. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Matthew 5:17-5:20 would disagree with you. Jesus himself said that he had no intention to change the laws of the prophets.

We’re taking two steps forward and three steps back. - You just finished admitting in last post that the law had been changed regarding the lineage of the priesthood...so, make up your mind:  was it or was it not changed?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did Jesus fulfil and accomplish the requirements of the Law or not?  If so, then it is done away with.  If not, then you need to go buy yourself a lamb to sacrifice and be in Jerusalem for Passover.

---

19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

This passage would seem to suggest that you are incorrect, and that the law of the prophets is forever, or at least until after the world has been undone. 

You do realize, don’t you, that from verse 19 onward, “these commandments” Jesus is giving them were NOT in the OLd Testament and is instead contrasting the external laws of the Law of Moses with the new requirements of the heart that Jesus is about to initiate within the new covenant?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't admiting anything. Please, Jmfcst if you can't even interpet my posts, how can I trust you to interpet the Bible correctly. What I said was that I am following you, in other words I understand your argument and point of view, that doesn't mean that I accept it as the truth.

My belief is that God's words, and thus his laws, are eternal. I do however believe that laws can be mistranslated and misinterpeted. So when Jesus says that he does not mean to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them, he does not change the laws themselves, he just clearifies  them.

Take for example Matthew 12, in which the followers of Jesus pick grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees accuses Jesus and his followers as it is according to Levitical law forbidden to work on the Saabbath. Nowhere in those verses do Jesus say, "new era guys, God has just changed that law" What he does however is to clearify the law, which was never intended to stop people from preparing food for themselves or do good, like healing someone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did Jesus fulfil and accomplish the requirements of the Law or not?  If so, then it is done away with.  If not, then you need to go buy yourself a lamb to sacrifice and be in Jerusalem for Passover.[/quote]

That doesn't make sense. By fulfilling a law you do not do away with it. Actually it says right there that not a single letter from the law will disappear until heaven and earth disappear, and that is what Jesus refers to when he says "until everything is accomplished" not him fulfilling the law.

As for the lamb, as you know Jesus sacrifised himself in the place of a lamb so that all humankind could be saved. That doesn't mean that the law to sacrifice was changed, but Jesus has already made that sacrifice for us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's simply not true for two reasons. Jesus does not give them any new comandments. He, as I've explained, only clearifies what the old laws actually meant. And even if he did give them new comandments to follow, verse 19 does clearly refer to the law Jesus has just talked about, and not the ones he's about to talk about. If I tell people about a number of rules, and then say they must follow these rules, I clearly mean the rules I have just mentioned and not the ones I'm about to mention.

 

[Хahar 🤔]

Adam lived for 800 years?!  Good grief, the Bible's authors certainly had vivid imaginations.

In the OT (specifically the Torah), extreme longevity was used as a way to communicate the idea that people were very blessed... it quickly disappeared after those original writings had been taken down, and attitudes toward Earthly blessing changed.  The point they are getting accross is just that this was someone who had God's favor (yes, even in Adam's case).

Interestingly, Tolkien used the same literary tool for the 'good' humans of Middle Earth.  Aragorn, for example, lived to the age of 210.

Not "good" so much as "of noble descent". Ar-Gimilzôr, who banned Elvish tongues in Númenor, lived to 217.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so what is the end game of this debate...are you saying each and every law of the Old Testament is still in effect?

If so, then how does Jesus qualify as High Priest when he is not a Levite?