PROOF that catholicism is false


#1

Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

Can someone please explain the catholic take (or any take) on genesis 4: 23-24? This is the last statement about the line of cain and it seems to suggest that murder is ok for that line. Does this also suggest that “eye for an eye” does not extend to the death penalty for murder? I was just curious what this is all about, and what became of the line of cain? They were still obviously protected by God after many murders.


#2

[quote=Wormwood]Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

Can someone please explain the catholic take (or any take) on genesis 4: 23-24? This is the last statement about the line of cain and it seems to suggest that murder is ok for that line. Does this also suggest that “eye for an eye” does not extend to the death penalty for murder? I was just curious what this is all about, and what became of the line of cain? They were still obviously protected by God after many murders.
[/quote]

I believe the idea is to indicate that Lamech was evil. He seems to be threatening his wives that he would kill them if they crossed him.

In any case, the line of Cain was destroyed with the flood.


#3

[quote=Wormwood]Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

Does this also suggest that “eye for an eye” does not extend to the death penalty for murder?
[/quote]

Of course it extends to the death penality for murder. But you misunderstand what an “eye for an eye” means. It does not mean if you kill you deserve to be killed. It means one cannot go beyond the injustice to seek justice. In other words. If you dent my car, I cannot burn down your house! I can however require you to fix my car. The penalty cannot exceed the harm caused. We should apply this principle in civil lawsuits!


#4

I believe the idea is to indicate that Lamech was evil. He seems to be threatening his wives that he would kill them if they crossed him.

But the fact that Lamech is evil is not really addressed. He is not threatening his wife, he is saying since Cain was protected by a seven fold threat for killing one man, that he Lamech, would be protected by seventy seven fold for killing two.

In any case, the line of Cain was destroyed with the flood.

Yes but this just brings up another point… Cain was protected after slaying his brother, but the line of Ham was cursed (for seeing his father’s genitals?) for basically nothing. This is the reason some muslim’s say christianity is anti black, because the line of Ham went to africa after the flood.

Of course it extends to the death penality for murder. But you misunderstand what an “eye for an eye” means. It does not mean if you kill you deserve to be killed.

What evidence do you use to support this? If you take an eye, you lose an eye. It is the same as hamurabi’s code, it does apply to not going overboard, but also inflicts a punishment similar to the crime. Plus if you argue that “eye for an eye” DOES apply to the death penalty, why did cain gain instead the lords protection?
And how could Lamech openly express 11x the protection that cain got? Please anyone with a more percise answer let me know.


#5

[quote=Wormwood]Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

Can someone please explain the catholic take (or any take) on genesis 4: 23-24? This is the last statement about the line of cain and it seems to suggest that murder is ok for that line. Does this also suggest that “eye for an eye” does not extend to the death penalty for murder? I was just curious what this is all about, and what became of the line of cain? They were still obviously protected by God after many murders.
[/quote]

Lessee:

Gen 4:22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Na’amah.

Gen 4:23   Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, hearken to what I say: I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.  

Gen 4:24   If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold."  

Gen 4:25   And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him."  

[left]
It is a taunt-song - and it is not clear how it proves Catholicism false. The passage does not say, “This is how God wishes people to behave” - it says, “This is how Cain’s descendants behaved”.

Not all of the Bible is direct moral teaching in the way that the Ten Commandments are: “Do X: do not do Y”.

The names in 4.17-24 are mostly the same as those in the following chapter - the author of Genesis is fond of saying what he says in pairs of episodes: what he has done here, is take the same names and give them to two sets of people - the descendants of Cain, and the descendants of Seth. Not to give biographical information, but to contrast what becomes of man when he leaves the presence of God as Cain does after murdering Abel, with what becomes of him if he “calls upon the Name of the Lord”; something often done by the “pious” characters of the OT, such as Abraham or the various psalmists. The descendants of Cain are inventive - but not concerned about God.

Adam before the Fall has Eve as his other self, who is created from him yet is not him; Lamech is the first man in the Bible to have two wives (compare Matthew 19 with this). Enoch the descendant of Adam “walked with God, and was not” - Enoch son of Cain was a city-builder: and cities in Genesis are usually there to be judged or destroyed. Where there is material culture in Genesis, there is often an implied moral judgement: Enoch the descendant of Seth, his own descendant Noah, Abra(ha)m, Isaac, & Jacob, are all God-pleasing figures, and none of them lives a settled, urban, life - they are all “on the move” in one way or another.

Not that material culture is bad - but it can encourage forgetfulness of God, the great evil for Israelite religion: the prophets are forever complaining in God’s Name that “my people has forgotten Me” - or forgotten something done by God; Who by contrast, is the One Who did not forget, but “remembered” Noah. Evil comes from forgetfulness of God - and Lamech is in effect forgetting God by having two wives and by out-doing Cain: the meaning of the text of Lamech’s song is somewhat uncertain, but that point at least appears to be clear enough. [/left]


#6

[quote=Wormwood]Yes but this just brings up another point… Cain was protected after slaying his brother, but the line of Ham was cursed (for seeing his father’s genitals?) for basically nothing. This is the reason some muslim’s say christianity is anti black, because the line of Ham went to africa after the flood.
[/quote]

My understanding of the phrase, “Ham looked upon his father’s nakedness” was that it was a euphemism for an incestuous relationship between Ham and his mother which happened while Noah was passed out drunk. This led to the curse of Ham’s descendents.


#7

It is a taunt-song - and it is not clear how it proves Catholicism false. The passage does not say, “This is how God wishes people to behave” - it says, “This is how Cain’s descendants behaved”.

I never speculated it proved anything to be false, I simply want to know what the proverbial “deal” was. I do like the explaination you provide after this, I have to say it is the best I’ve heard so far. Any takes on the line of Ham?

My understanding of the phrase, “Ham looked upon his father’s nakedness” was that it was a euphemism for an incestuous relationship between Ham and his mother which happened while Noah was passed out drunk. This led to the curse of Ham’s descendents

Is this the official understanding or personal interpretation? What about the Muslim claims that the bible is saying black people are cursed by God?


#8

Is this the official understanding or personal interpretation? What about the Muslim claims that the bible is saying black people are cursed by God?

They’d have to explain why the Jews intermarried with Ethiopians, and why Africa was a huge part of the Church before Muslims came in rading, pillaging, and converting by the sword :stuck_out_tongue:

A number of our great saints, including no less than St. Augustine, were from Africa. We don’t know their actual skin-colors (photographs from the time are hard to come by), but we do know that they were undoubtedly African.


#9

They’d have to explain why the Jews intermarried with Ethiopians, and why Africa was a huge part of the Church before Muslims came in rading, pillaging, and converting by the sword :stuck_out_tongue:

A number of our great saints, including no less than St. Augustine, were from Africa. We don’t know their actual skin-colors (photographs from the time are hard to come by), but we do know that they were undoubtedly African.

Ok thanks. I do recall the scientific speculation of a lost tribe of Isreal in Ethiopia. But what about Ham Ghosty? Surely you of all people have an opinion about this :slight_smile: Seeing fathers “junk” bad enough to have your family line cursed?


#10

[quote=Wormwood]Ok thanks. I do recall the scientific speculation of a lost tribe of Isreal in Ethiopia. But what about Ham Ghosty? Surely you of all people have an opinion about this :slight_smile: Seeing fathers “junk” bad enough to have your family line cursed?
[/quote]

Well, instead of covering him up, he laughed. And remember, Noah did the cursing here. And Cham’s son gets cursed, not him, so therefore not all black people (assuming the Muslim accusation) would be cursed, just the descendants of Chanaan, not all the descendents of Cham

Here are the footnotes from my Bible:
“Cursed be Chanaan”… The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs, were prophetical: And this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father’s faults? The Hebrews answer, that he being then a boy, was the first that saw his grandfather’s nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than upon the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse.


#11

Are you forgetting where the Jews were from? Africa (Egypt for centuries) and the Middle East. I bet some were black, a logical deduction. The Jews at the time were the chosen race. Judism is a race of Religion not color. The Jews had no land and were homeless thus the searching for the promise land.
Catholism is a religion that continues the saga of the Old Testament. After all the first Catholics were Jews including Christ himself and the Apostles and later with Paul included others. In the Old Testament no one was entering heaven and all were cursed due to the sins of Adam and Eve. With Jesus’s passion (The Lamb) and ressurection all was made new, This by Jesus’s own words.We as humans have a fresh start.
In the Muslim world they do not deny Jesus and in fact claim Him as a prophet. But read about mohammed the person, his life style and actions during his life and tell me what works for you.
Remember we all come from the Abraham and have the same God. I really do not understand your question or should I say statement. To not believe in Catholism is to dismiss Christianity afyter all without us Catholics there would be no anglicans.Without the Jews and Catholics there would be no Moslems.


#12

[quote=Wormwood]Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

[/quote]

** THAT IS AWESOME!!! hahahahahaha **


#13

[quote=Wormwood]Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

Can someone please explain the catholic take (or any take) on genesis 4: 23-24? This is the last statement about the line of cain and it seems to suggest that murder is ok for that line. Does this also suggest that “eye for an eye” does not extend to the death penalty for murder? I was just curious what this is all about, and what became of the line of cain? They were still obviously protected by God after many murders.
[/quote]

The thread name Sir, is a deceitful tactic. Good job :thumbsup: …though mayhaps you should mention it in confession?


#14

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]Of course it extends to the death penality for murder. But you misunderstand what an “eye for an eye” means. It does not mean if you kill you deserve to be killed. It means one cannot go beyond the injustice to seek justice. In other words. If you dent my car, I cannot burn down your house! I can however require you to fix my car. The penalty cannot exceed the harm caused. We should apply this principle in civil lawsuits!
[/quote]

Good point, Br Rich. I guess this means Pres. Bush has Scriptural basis for limiting the amounts of ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. ?

Faithful One

–Ninety-nine percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.–:smiley:


#15

[quote=Wormwood]I never speculated it proved anything to be false, I simply want to know what the proverbial “deal” was. I do like the explaination you provide after this, I have to say it is the best I’ve heard so far. Any takes on the line of Ham?
[/quote]

As to Ham, the curse seems to be because of the closeness & the continuity of the family unit. Canaan is cursed because his father’s sin works out its effects on him, and not on Ham alone: “the evil that men do lives after them”, in fact. Even when their sins are old history, the events set in train by those sins carry on working. So Canaan, though personally innocent and, indeed, wholly uninvolved in the episode, suffers as a result of the sin of others. What is being got at, is the solidarity of man as cursed, and as blessed: for verses 25-27 matter too. People in the OT are not lone individuals - they are members of social groups; so the sin of one, is thought of as the sin of all. For a long time at least.

And the Flood-narrative looks foward to the Sodom-narrative. I have very little Hebrew :frowning: but from what I’ve read there are many similarities between the two. One of which, is the theme of drunkenness - Noah is drunk and lies exposed; Lot is drunk, and his daughters commit incest. So both worthies have misbehaving children. The land of Canaan was conquered by the Israelites; and Moab & Ammon, the descendants of drunken Lot, were subjugated by David.

There are all sorts of ideas and themes and motifs in the early chapters of Genesis which tie together stories about cities, drunkenness, various sins, Divine judgement & blessing. And there are connections with other books: Genesis 19 (the intended assault on the “angels/messengers”) resembles a story in Judges 19.

Any help :slight_smile: ? ##

Is this the official understanding or personal interpretation? What about the Muslim claims that the bible is saying black people are cursed by God?

I’ll let WBB answer that one :slight_smile: - are you thinking of the Mormon claims (or am I) ?


#16

Are you forgetting where the Jews were from? Africa (Egypt for centuries) and the Middle East. I bet some were black, a logical deduction.

I believe the father of Abraham was from Ur in the middle east. Also the egyptians were not black. Plus none of this matters because all humanity was killed which means the races evolved after the flood. The line of Ham went to africa, I can definitely see the assumtion that his decendants would be africans as we know them today…still cursed with pestilence and famine since biblical times. This isn’t some sort of “master race” debate or anything, I just heard someone make the claim, so I was curious what the other side of the story was.

To not believe in Catholism is to dismiss Christianity afyter all without us Catholics there would be no anglicans.Without the Jews and Catholics there would be no Moslems.

inaccurate. You can argue the man made tennants of a man made church (and no I don’t believe that Jesus started the catholic church) are flawed and unneccessary, and still believe in christianity. Without the jews there would be no muslims…why you try to slip catholic in there I will never know.

**

**THAT IS AWESOME!!! hahahahahaha **

The thread name Sir, is a deceitful tactic. Good job :thumbsup: …though mayhaps you should mention it in confession?

Hehe thanks guys…it was either this or " Is God an Atheist?" :slight_smile:

“the evil that men do lives after them”, in fact. Even when their sins are old history, the events set in train by those sins carry on working. So Canaan, though personally innocent and, indeed, wholly uninvolved in the episode, suffers as a result of the sin of others. What is being got at, is the solidarity of man as cursed, and as blessed: for verses 25-27 matter too. People in the OT are not lone individuals - they are members of social groups; so the sin of one, is thought of as the sin of all. For a long time at least.

To me this sounds like God’s early advice about psychology. How character flaws are often manifest in one’s offspring. (i.e. you beat your kids, your son beats his kids, his son beats his kids etc). And these things do in fact effect the community, seem plausible at least.**


#17

Hello Wormwood

Back I see…

God Bless


#18

[quote=Wormwood]Ok now that I have your attention :slight_smile:

Can someone please explain the catholic take (or any take) on genesis 4: 23-24? This is the last statement about the line of cain and it seems to suggest that murder is ok for that line. Does this also suggest that “eye for an eye” does not extend to the death penalty for murder? I was just curious what this is all about, and what became of the line of cain? They were still obviously protected by God after many murders.
[/quote]

The title to the thread reminds me of an article I saw in the college paper, called, “Sex in the Dorms,” followed by a half page of Latin text taken out of Caesar’s Gallic Wars.

First, here are the verses…

**23 ****Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a boy for bruising me. ****24 **If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold." Genesis 4:23-24.

It is important to “become an ancient” in understanding these verses. “Adah” and “Zillah” are probably not real people. “Adah” means “advancing,” and “Zillah” means “shading” – as in “advancing” or “dawning” day, and “shading,” or “dusk.” Lamech’s wives’ names are therefore probably intended to be apprehended as “Dawn” and “Dusk” – “Light” and “Dark,” “Blonde” and “Brunette.” Lamech married to Adah and Zillah is Archie married to Betty and Veronica.

Gaster, in Myth, Legend and Cusom in the Old Testament, suggests that Lamech shouts his boast to “blonde” and “brunette” because what is intended is something like “all and sundry” or “friends, Romans, countryman!” He’s saying, “Everyone! Listen to me!” The inspired author of Genesis turned an “Everyone! Listen to me!” line into two girls’ names.

When Lamech boasts of his kill, he is functionally beating his hairy chest and saying, “Woo! I sure kicked HIS tail!” It’s a war cry, a boast.

The Footnotes of the Old Testament Committee of the NAB suggest that at the plaintext level, the Final Redactor – the R source, or the guy (or girl?) who pulled this version of Genesis together – was suggesting that mankind was deteriorating. Mankind not only wants God’s kind of vengeance, but his own especially-vicious vengeance, too.

The question is, What is being portrayed at the sensus plenior level? In other words, Why is this verse HERE?

Well, note the reference to Cain. After Cain kills the Christ-picture shepherd, Cain ends up enjoying God’s special protection! … **15 ****Not so!" the LORD said to him. “If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.” So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. Genesis 4:15. **… Lamech is saying, “Sheesh! God strikes back sevenfold at those who try to kill Cain. Heck, I got to kill someone for bruising me! I, Lamech, get seventy-seven fold vengeance!”

Now note who Lamech is married to – “two” women, Dawn and Dusk. The Woman Type = “mankind in need of salvation.” The Two Type = “Church.” Their names, Dawn and Dusk, suggest that these symbolize Christians in trhe Church. Dusk is when Christ died. Resurrection is when He rose. We see this use of Dusk and Dawn elsewhere in the Bible to refer to Christ – for example, Exodus 16:13-14: God feeds the people with quail in the evening, and manna in the morning. Food made of “Christ”!

So, we have a typological word picture here telling us that, just as the killing of Christ generated “protection,” those in the Church will enjoy that same protection in spades!


#19

:slight_smile: Hello Wormwood

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is a man made Church ?

Yet still declare that you are a Christian ?

Do you deny scripture or do you just pick and choose ?

Peter you are the rock that I will build my church. Who said that ?
Thats right Jesus

Who was the Catholics first Pope? I believe it was the Apostle hung on a cross upside down.

Where was Paul Be headed --I believe it was Rome.

Where was the early Christians killed in a coluseum

Where is the Holy See of the Church–Rome-

I believe Christ had destroyed the Temple and re-built the Temple in 3 days through his resurrection and the Temple is in Rome

All roads lead to Rome

One last thing whatever sect you are from please give me the history. Give me the scripture. Your leaders from the church of Christ of the 1st or 2nd century.

Being a Catholic is not a building or structure it is following the Apostolic journey of what Christ started, obeying his chosen Apostles, and successors as is written in scripture. This can be documented in history and the Bible. To have faith and fully surrender yourself to Christ and love Him with all your heart, mind, and soul above all others. Jesus deserves all the glory as without The Father,Son, and Holy Spirit their would be no glory as God made all and is his for his glory alone.

Man made Church I think not–Make the journey come back home

:slight_smile: wormwood.

You are the one who brought up that the Moslems brought up color I just brought the fact that Egypt is in Africa as well as Morrocco and many people in Africa are not black. The bible did not bring up race. :thumbsup:


#20

Wormwood isn’t Christian at all, and has never claimed to be as far as I know. It’s my understanding that he’s agnostic. :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.