Infallibility of the OT

grandvizier1006

Seeking a life that honors God.
Supporter
Dec 2, 2014
5,976
2,599
28
MS
✟663,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
i feel like lately I'm finding out that a lot of things about the Bible are too naturalistic, too non-divine and non-spirtual. That bothers me. If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God then why is there stuff like the following:

1. Eve was made from Adam. While the word for rib is used, I believe, it states that the Lord closed up Adam's flesh. But I've heard that it could be translated as seam or "organ of generation". It has led to the speculation that Eve was actually made from Adan's "bacculum", and that the author of Genesis was just using a euphemism. The bacculum is a "penis bone" that many male mammals have. scholars (usually atheists who see the creation story as myth) assume that this is an etiological myth, explaining why men don't have bones in their penises, and why there is a "seam" on men's penises (it has another cause, of course). I know there probably wasn't much scientific and anatomical investigation among the ancient Hebrews, but still...I feel like no one around me gets the implications of that. Woman, assuming this theory is correct, was not made for Adam's side to represent equality with him, or made from a part of him that he could afford to lose, but instead was made from his penis. Phallic worship is a very pagan idea (the idea that it is the penis that primarily gives life and women are just vessels for babies), and I think it's awful and downright misogynistic for that idea to be in the Bible. I'm not some liberal feminist, I'm a guy, but it bothers me. How can we say women are equal to men if the first instance of one comes from an exclusively male organ? It gives off the Freudian idea that women are "just men without penises".

I was told by other people that that theory was incorrect, but I never got any proof. I sure hope it is, but I'd like some answers.

Another problem I have with the Hebrew is the word "Sheol". I understand that that is Hell, but it, like Satan, was supposedly "developed" in Judaism and Christianity, particularly after the exile and return. How can we say that satan existed, that the fall even happened, etc, if it actually didn't and we just added it in? The concept of the Fall of Satan was not always there, then how do we reconcile the idea into the Bible? Furthermore, in Ecclesiates the author seems to imply that all people go to the same place when they die, some sort of place of nothingness. What happened to Heaven and Hell? How did Elijah and Enoch get taken up to Heaven before and after Ecclesiastes, respectively? Why is it that in some books of the a bible, the afterlife is different than what we think of? Was it ever there, or just developed? Did God change things, or do we just change things and then pretend that He did?

This is a big problem for me. I don't like the idea of having to "retcon" anything in the Bible--saying something, realizing it contradicts with something before, and then going back and acting like it's all connected. It bothers me because it undermines the Bible's infallibility and inerrancy. The Bible, if it's really the Word of God, should not have these problems in it. And that's not even getting started on polygamy. God used to approve of it but the. he changed his mind? Or maybe we did when we decided that it was best to have only one wife?

I know that's a lot but I'd appreciate truthful answers that don't dodge the questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrystalDragon

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
75
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟25,275.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
i could give you an answer to each, but it would be an opinion. We all see God differently, because we are all different. We cannot fill the earth if we all stand in the same place. Be glad that you will get 1000 opinions, within which you will find yourself and your place in the Kingdom of God. It is part of our inheritance of His greatness.

If I'm not supposed to post here let me know. I have spent many years working with MJ's.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Imho, Sir, the NT clarifies many things left unsaid in the Tanakh. Creation, what evil spirits are, a bit more about Satan. In the end, though, we don't get every single answer. We get the info we need. Scholars enjoy picking at and proposing new or alternative translations for Hebrew terms quite a bit. The more bizarre they can make the text sound, the better. Sheol; as a believer who hopes in the salvation of all through Christ, I don't worry too much about it. I know there is a sheol and a Paradise, and a Judgement. And hope to be among the sheep, not the goats.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
i feel like lately I'm finding out that a lot of things about the Bible are too naturalistic, too non-divine and non-spirtual. That bothers me. If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God then why is there stuff like the following:

1. Eve was made from Adam. While the word for rib is used, I believe, it states that the Lord closed up Adam's flesh. But I've heard that it could be translated as seam or "organ of generation". It has led to the speculation that Eve was actually made from Adan's "bacculum", and that the author of Genesis was just using a euphemism. The bacculum is a "penis bone" that many male mammals have. scholars (usually atheists who see the creation story as myth) assume that this is an etiological myth, explaining why men don't have bones in their penises, and why there is a "seam" on men's penises (it has another cause, of course). I know there probably wasn't much scientific and anatomical investigation among the ancient Hebrews, but still...I feel like no one around me gets the implications of that. Woman, assuming this theory is correct, was not made for Adam's side to represent equality with him, or made from a part of him that he could afford to lose, but instead was made from his penis. Phallic worship is a very pagan idea (the idea that it is the penis that primarily gives life and women are just vessels for babies), and I think it's awful and downright misogynistic for that idea to be in the Bible. I'm not some liberal feminist, I'm a guy, but it bothers me. How can we say women are equal to men if the first instance of one comes from an exclusively male organ? It gives off the Freudian idea that women are "just men without penises".

I was told by other people that that theory was incorrect, but I never got any proof. I sure hope it is, but I'd like some answers.
The Hebrew word "tsalah" was translated "side" many times; side of the tabernacle, side of the ark, etc. Genesis 2:21 says Yahweh took "one" (echad) of Adam's ribs (plural). I have yet to see a man with two or more penises growing out of his side and I seriously doubt Adam was created that way.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How did Elijah and Enoch get taken up to Heaven before and after Ecclesiastes, respectively?
Neither one of them went to the heaven where Yahweh dwells. Yeshua was the first to go there (John 3:13; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 11:13). Yeshua had the preeminence in all things (Colossians 1:18).
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Another problem I have with the Hebrew is the word "Sheol". I understand that that is Hell, but it, like Satan, was supposedly "developed" in Judaism and Christianity, particularly after the exile and return.
The concept of "sheol" has always existed in the Tanakh. It was certainly "developed" in Christianity, but erroneously. The old English word "hell" meant to cover over. Farmers would hell potatoes with dirt. "Hell" in the Bible refers to the grave where people are covered over with dirt. Later, Dante's Inferno (Italian for "Hell") put another spin on Hell as a place of eternal torment. The grave is where the dead are held until their resurrection unto eternal life or death.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Bible, if it's really the Word of God, should not have these problems in it. And that's not even getting started on polygamy. God used to approve of it but the. he changed his mind? Or maybe we did when we decided that it was best to have only one wife?
Polygamy was not "approved of" by Yahweh. It was allowed, just as divorce was allowed, but from the beginning it was not so. Yahweh regulated it just as He regulated divorce.
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hi, welcome to the MJ forum :wave: I will be happy to give you this Messianic Jews opinion, you know we all have a few;)



i feel like lately I'm finding out that a lot of things about the Bible are too naturalistic, too non-divine and non-spirtual. That bothers me. If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God then why is there stuff like the following:

1. Eve was made from Adam. While the word for rib is used, I believe, it states that the Lord closed up Adam's flesh. But I've heard that it could be translated as seam or "organ of generation". It has led to the speculation that Eve was actually made from Adan's "bacculum", and that the author of Genesis was just using a euphemism. The bacculum is a "penis bone" that many male mammals have. scholars (usually atheists who see the creation story as myth) assume that this is an etiological myth, explaining why men don't have bones in their penises, and why there is a "seam" on men's penises (it has another cause, of course). I know there probably wasn't much scientific and anatomical investigation among the ancient Hebrews, but still...I feel like no one around me gets the implications of that. Woman, assuming this theory is correct, was not made for Adam's side to represent equality with him, or made from a part of him that he could afford to lose, but instead was made from his penis. Phallic worship is a very pagan idea (the idea that it is the penis that primarily gives life and women are just vessels for babies), and I think it's awful and downright misogynistic for that idea to be in the Bible. I'm not some liberal feminist, I'm a guy, but it bothers me. How can we say women are equal to men if the first instance of one comes from an exclusively male organ? It gives off the Freudian idea that women are "just men without penises".

I was told by other people that that theory was incorrect, but I never got any proof. I sure hope it is, but I'd like some answers.

I haven't heard of this before, where did you come across this?

My idea on this is that the word 'rib' was used as from the time this creation story was passed down this was what could be understood. However only in the last 100+ years has DNA been discovered and much shorter time for what it actually meant. To me understanding about DNA leads me to believe that was what G-d 'extracted and the best place for DNA is the bones. It does not mean he took a bone from wherever and magically built flesh upon it. 'Adam' originally stood for mankind, meaning the human species. My primitive understanding is that G-d created mankind and after creating the animals realized that there was "none to keep him company', so what he did was to basically

'Split the Adam (atom)' and make one into two parts. This is the more scientific way of the primitive saying that

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Jesus also brought this up, and for good reason it is speaking of the relationship of mankind and G-d, the Bride being mankind and the Man Being the Messiah. These two shall become one.


Another problem I have with the Hebrew is the word "Sheol". I understand that that is Hell, but it, like Satan, was supposedly "developed" in Judaism and Christianity, particularly after the exile and return. How can we say that satan existed, that the fall even happened, etc, if it actually didn't and we just added it in? The concept of the Fall of Satan was not always there, then how do we reconcile the idea into the Bible? Furthermore, in Ecclesiates the author seems to imply that all people go to the same place when they die, some sort of place of nothingness. What happened to Heaven and Hell? How did Elijah and Enoch get taken up to Heaven before and after Ecclesiastes, respectively? Why is it that in some books of the a bible, the afterlife is different than what we think of? Was it ever there, or just developed? Did God change things, or do we just change things and then pretend that He did?

This is a big problem for me. I don't like the idea of having to "retcon" anything in the Bible--saying something, realizing it contradicts with something before, and then going back and acting like it's all connected. It bothers me because it undermines the Bible's infallibility and inerrancy. The Bible, if it's really the Word of God, should not have these problems in it. And that's not even getting started on polygamy. God used to approve of it but the. he changed his mind? Or maybe we did when we decided that it was best to have only one wife?

I know that's a lot but I'd appreciate truthful answers that don't dodge the questions.

I'd like to tackle this another time, your first 'problem' deserves more discussion so let's continue with that. :)
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
You almost need a thread for each question to help you because there are a lot of concepts that need reworked to get a clearer picture. Hope you break it down into smaller points so that you will not continue to get the here and there, this and that from your OT. Which is the most important point you would like clarified first?
 
Upvote 0

grandvizier1006

Seeking a life that honors God.
Supporter
Dec 2, 2014
5,976
2,599
28
MS
✟663,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You almost need a thread for each question to help you because there are a lot of concepts that need reworked to get a clearer picture. Hope you break it down into smaller points so that you will not continue to get the here and there, this and that from your OT. Which is the most important point you would like clarified first?
In the order that I asked the questions would be fine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
To me understanding about DNA leads me to believe that was what G-d 'extracted and the best place for DNA is the bones. It does not mean he took a bone from wherever and magically built flesh upon it.
The Almighty could have used Adam's DNA, but if He did, then He got it from Adam's bone/bone marrow.

Gen 2:21 And YHWH Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;​

This refers to the first surgical procedure upon a human. Adam's flesh needed to be opened and something extracted. That something was only "one" (echad) thing among several things. It seems far fetched to read this as, "he took one of his DNA ...". Afterwards, the flesh needed closing. If all Yahweh needed was DNA, He didn't need to cut open Adam's flesh to get it. Adam's hair or saliva would provide that DNA. A rib bone would not only provide the needed "bone", but DNA and blood as well.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Behrens

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2016
1,494
417
75
Milford, Delaware, USA
Visit site
✟25,275.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Eve was taken from Adam's side, His downward facing side. The point is that together, Adam (containing Eve not yet removed) is (are) the two facets of mediation between God and earth. The woman represents the earth reaching up to heaven, and the man represents God reaching down to earth. Dividing Adam in two this way forces discussion, which means further development on the earth is done by word, as was the first creation. This is proved by comparison of surrounding cultures, which have drawings of male and female in this position, and legends matching the statement of man and woman originally joined in this way.

The Bible does not say Enoch was taken to heaven - it says His place knew him no more. Elijah went in a whirlwind; Elisha saw the fiery chariot, and that proved he had a double portion of anointing. From this we learn that how we see death tells how we relate to God. When we are saved we are born again. In a sense the old man is dead, now we do not die again. The point is that we must learn to walk this out by faith.

In general, all of OT is for us an incomplete revelation, all pointing to and revealed finally only in Yeshua. All of it is true, but not all of it is complete. Hence, there are various things lacking in the revelation of Satan, sheol, etc. There is no contradiction if something is not stated completely, and there is no place where it is actually contradictory. As you read, make certain you allow for statements not quoted by God Himself, but rather by someone. Such a statement is there to tell us what was thought at the time.

The comment that these questions need separate threads is exactly right. I could write a couple paragraphs on each, showing the derivation of what I have said.
 
Upvote 0