Setting biblical misconceptions straight

[Basstrap]

First of all...
adam and eve
they were not the only people on earth. If you read Genesis.

Cain said to the Lord , "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

I think that implies there are many more outside don't you think??

Theres another verse which is even more clear.
Adam and even were simply the first created.

I also hear ravenstar say that all are created in the image of man.
Thats "man" in the general "mankind" sense.

-----------
Actually, I would like to hear how people figure the post flood earth was repopulated.
That I can't figure out

[RavenStar]

simple: there was no flood. Or atleast in the biblical sense. Ever heard of the Black Sea Flood? The Black sea was the result of a fast flood. You can tell this by looking at the floor of the sea. You can see a coastline, places where rivers would have been, beaches, etc. Since back then there was next to no worldly connections the people would have thought the whole world had flooded.

[diamond]

Bass-
From what I read Noah had Ham and a woman named Egyptus-sp?
on The Ark w him along w/some other adults- and all the animals of course, inc ZEdge..

Scientists universally agree that a A GREAT FLOOD occured parreling the Bibles chronologly.

DB9

[sulawesigirl4]

Considering the fact that the people on the ark included four married couples (Noah and wife, Shem and wife, Ham and wife, Japheth and wife) I don't know why the idea of them having children and repopulating the earth is all that hard to believe.

[Basstrap]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
Considering the fact that the people on the ark included four married couples (Noah and wife, Shem and wife, Ham and wife, Japheth and wife) I don't know why the idea of them having children and repopulating the earth is all that hard to believe.

well...all the kids would be close cousins but I guess that actually didn't matter so much back then!

[Se7en]

Christ was also most likely NOT crucified on a cross...rather a straight staff.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Se7en
Christ was also most likely NOT crucified on a cross...rather a straight staff.

If you don't me asking, but could you provide more details?

I've heard many various theories about Roman crucifixion, but I am generally wary of those that dispute certain details in the New Testament. Specifically, the Gospels make clear that Jesus' hands and feet were pierced with nails, and His side was pierced with a Roman spear - and an inspection of these wounds is what convinced (doubting) Thomas that Jesus had risen from the dead.

If the theory does not dispute important details such as these, I have no problem considering it as a definite possibility.

[Rono]

Originally posted by Basstrap


well...all the kids would be close cousins but I guess that actually didn't matter so much back then!

Inbreed ? Having kids with the kid of a uncle who is a kid from his sister and his father, i think there is not enough genetic diversity to get healty kids after two ore three generations. And where did the different colors came from ?

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by Se7en
Christ was also most likely NOT crucified on a cross...rather a straight staff.

I once heard somebody explain the exact cause of Jesus' probable death. Yes, he apparently died at the cross, but because of what?
- Piercing hands and feet, although extremely painful, is not enough for a person to die.
- The Roman spear did apparently not cause a fatal wound.

The most likely cause of death would be asphyxiation (yes, I had to go to the Meriam-Webster's dictionary to look up the exact spelling ) caused by exhaustion. When nailed to the cross the less painful position is to lean down a bit so that less weight is put on the (pierced) feet. However, the body is then in such a position that it does not received enough oxygen (the arms are raised a bit too high), so after a while the person has to rise a little bit to get enough oxygen. As this is very painful, one can only do it for a short while before leaning down again. In the end one is exhausted so much that he cannot rise again and dies because of a lack of oxygen. It's not a happy story, but crucifixion was indeed very cruel.

BTW, a crucified person was not only nailed to the cross, his arms were also tied to the cross. The Romans already knew that nails only could not hold a person (it will tear up flesh when faced with a weight of more than 25 kg). It was thus only added for extra cruelty.

Marty

P.S. I said probable death of Jesus as there are stories he didn't die at the cross, but was merely unconscious (and heavily wounded) and he got away to India.

[brettig]

Isn't there a school of thought that Jesus was nailed to the cross thru his wrists rather than his hands?

[Angela Harlem]

Were people back then aware of the implications of indreeding? And do you think that people had the kind of general idea that breeding with family members might be wrong genetically speaking? I've always wondered about this. Also whether 8 people (from Sula's comment re: 4 couples) are enough to avoid this. I am too lazy to work this out.
A potential misconception I have wondered about is the said other 2 men who were put on crosses either side of him. Is this true? And was one really a thief and one a murderer? How common a practice was placing men on a cross to either asphyxiate or starve to death?

[Achtung Bubba]

I've recently read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, a book that scrutinizes the evidence for Jesus Christ's life, death and ressurection. The author interviewed Alexander Metherell, M.D., Ph.D., to get answers about many of the questions and theories about the cross, including those mentioned here. In brief:

Metherell believes that Jesus was killed on a t-shape cross - nailed to a horizontal beam (called a patibulum) which was then attached to a vertical beam that was set permanently into the ground.

He also believes that Jesus was nailed through the wrists, which would be enough to support the weight; in the language of that time and place, however, the wrist was considered part of the hand.

The pain would have been terrible, to the degree that the Romans had to invent a new word to describe it - "excruciating," but Metherell agrees that death would have been caused by asphyxiation.

If that weren't enough (and it certainly was), the piercing through His side probably punctured a lung and the heart. That would have caused the issuing of the pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, thereby explaining the "blood AND water (emphasis mine)" mentioned in John 19:34.

Finally, the book addressed the so-called "swoon theory," that Christ did not actually die on the cross. It has been an apparently pernicious theory, appearing as early as in the Koran (written in the seventh century) and as recently as a book published in 1992.

Metherell rejects the theory as ridiculous. Jesus would not have long survived the hypovolemic shock from losing so much blood during the flogging beforehand. He could not have faked His death on the cross itself, because "you can't fake the inability to breathe for long." He could not have survived a spear piercing a lung and his heart. And He certainly could not have survived the combination of the three.

The Roman soldiers, who were experts in killing people and liable for death themselves if a condemned man survived, would not have allowed Him to escape alive.

The theory that suggests otherwise is "impossible," "a fanciful theory without any possible basis in fact."

Jesus died that day. Period. The only real question is whether the story ends there.

[Basstrap]

I think the flood problem needs more analysis here...
how did this work?

I think I can explain the color thing as adaption to enviroment...I actually think thats how micro-evolution would explain it as well.

[RavenStar]

A normal crucifixion usually takes 2-3 weeks. But his only took 2-3 days. Maybe he didn't die but instead passed out therefore making it look like he came back to life.

We did an assignment in science this year that had to do with breeding. we had circles, squares, triangles, and diamonds. Then we were told that we could not breed two of the same shape together because of inbreeding.

Circle-Square Circle-Triangle Circle-Diamond

Square-triangle Square-Diamond

Triangle-Diamond

We were then told that all squares hadnt evolved properly and had all died off. So now we are left with:

Circle-Triangle Circle-Diamond Triangle-Diamond

Now these three combined shapes had to breed. Keep in mind a shape cant breed with its own kind.
None of these shapes can breed. Double it so there are two of each shape to begin with, to go along with Sula's theory, the shapes could not survive. Even if Square had of made it, 4 couples could not continue a species.

[Spiral_Staircase]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
A potential misconception I have wondered about is the said other 2 men who were put on crosses either side of him. Is this true? And was one really a thief and one a murderer? How common a practice was placing men on a cross to either asphyxiate or starve to death?

1. The bible mentions two other people who were crucified at the same time as Jesus, and they are both described as criminals or thieves. I don't think either is ever refered to as a murderer. (See Matthew chapter 27 and Luke chapter 23)

2. It appears that crucifixion was a fairly common form of execution used by the Greeks and Romans. From Gerard Sloyan's "The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith ":

Seneca (d. 65 C.E.) refers to a variety of postures and different kinds of tortures on crosses: some victims are thrust head downward, others have a stake impale their genitals (obscena), still others have their arms outstretched on a crossbeam. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing of the Jewish War of the late 60s, is explicit about Jews captured by the Romans who were first flogged, tortured before they died, and then crucified before the city wall. The pity he reports that Titus, father of Josephus's imperial patron Vespasian, felt for them did not keep Titus from letting his troops dispatch as many as five hundred in a day: "The soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses for the sport of it, and their number was so great that there was not enough room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies." Josephus calls it "the most wretched of deaths." He tells of the surrender of the fortress Machaerus on the east shore of the Dead Sea when the Romans threatened a Jewish prisoner with crucifixion.

[Spiral_Staircase]

Originally posted by RavenStar
A normal crucifixion usually takes 2-3 weeks. But his only took 2-3 days.

Can you give any other information on these two statements?
Nothing I've ever seen would lead me to believe that the average Roman crucifixion took 2-3 weeks, and I don't know of any sources that suggest that Christ's crucifixion to 2-3 days.

[RavenStar]

Jesus was crucified on good friday right? Isnt it said that he came back to life on Easter? Isnt easter 2-3 days after good friday?
Crucifixtions were quite common back then. Even people who get crucified today take atleast a week to die.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by RavenStar
A normal crucifixion usually takes 2-3 weeks. But his only took 2-3 days. Maybe he didn't die but instead passed out therefore making it look like he came back to life.

Even if a crucifixion could last that long, I am under the impression that most take no more than a day or two. I'm certainly unaware of a "normal" crucifixion taking so long.

That said, consider John 19:31-35:

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

The Romans were under pressure to keep this particular set of executions brief, since the Passover sabbath was quickly approaching. The Romans broke the legs of the other two, making them unable to push themselves up to breathe; they thus quickly died of asphyxiation.

They saw that Jesus was already dead and didn't break His legs. Just to be sure, they STILL pierced His side, likely puncturing a lung and His heart. If He WAS alive at the time (somehow convincingly faking death by asphyxiation), He was certainly killed by that wound.

He simply could not have survived the flogging, the nailing to the cross, the asphyxiation it caused, AND the final spear in the side. He did die that day.

(Even assuming the impossible feat of his survival, He would have been in an absolutely terrible condition following that day's events. He would have been hard pressed to claim victory over death, and it seems unlikely that His followers would do the same.)

[Spiral_Staircase]

Originally posted by RavenStar
Jesus was crucified on good friday right? Isnt it said that he came back to life on Easter? Isnt easter 2-3 days after good friday?
Crucifixtions were quite common back then. Even people who get crucified today take atleast a week to die.

According to the Bible, Christ's crucifixion took place in a day, and he was placed in a tomb that evening (what we call Good Friday) and he was ressurected on the third day (what we call Easter).


Yes, Curcifixtions were quite common back then, but I don't see why that would mean that most took 2-3 weeks. I don't see how someone sitting outside in a lazyboy recliner would survive for 2-3 weeks, let alone someone hanging from a piece of wood they've been nailed to. Help me understand.

[Se7en]

Bubba-

"In the Greek N.T. two words are used for "the cross," on which the Lord was put to death.

1. The word stauros; which denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution.
2. The word xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or any other purpose...

As the latter word xulon is used for the former stauros, it shoes us that the meaning of each is exactly the same...

Our English word "cross" is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word "stick" means a "crutch."
Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.
It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon in connection with the manner of our Lord's death, and rendered "tree" in Acts 5.30; 10.39; 13.29. Gal. 3.13. 1 Pet. 2.24....

There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber....

The Catacombs in Rome bear the same testimony: "Christ" is never represented there as "hanging on a cross"...

In his Letters from Rome, Dean Burgon says: "I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries.""

~The Companion Bible (Kregel Publications), Appendix 162

The Appendix comes to the conclusion that because the Greek letter X was used as the first letter of Christ's name, it was a symbol later adopted by Christians from ancient pagan religions.

Nothing there, at least to me, provides any sort of evidence that Christ was NOT pierced through his hands, feet, and side...only that he was crucified on a stake and not a cross.