Do Christians and muslims worship the same God?

[Cristian Andreu]

Well, therein lies a problem. You *can't tell* from the text itself - it doesn't explicate everything. It isn't an encyclopedia. The authors and translators generally expected individuals to either have the context for the references, or to have a priest or religious leader to give you that context. When those books were collected int the Bible, nobody expected you to be able to pick up the book (presuming you could read it) and know everything you needed to know.

The Bible (both Old and New Testament)... are kind of like comic books. There's a core story, but it often makes references to things more fully described in other works (for the Christians, the extras are often collectively called Apocrypha - the books that didn't make the cut when the current books of the Bible were chosen - in the 1500s and 1600s, depending on the denomination) that aren't part of the main collection. Reading the Bible is kind of like reading the Marvel Comics "Secret Wars" miniseries, but not reading all the crossover issues in the other titles. Or, like current Star Wars, with the Expanded Universe stories that aren't considered canon.

That's where we get the word canon, from, by the way. The books the church says are the accepted ones are the church canon.

It's not just the Apocrypha; for Orthodox and Catholics, the Bible alone is not enough for teaching the faith, as Tradition is also necessary, from where the Exegesis (explanation of the text) comes from.

That is, after all, one of the central aspects to the differences between Catholics/Orthodox and most Protestant denominations: The idea of Sola Scriptura, that the Holy Book alone is enough and that external sources should be eschewed. The former say no to Sola Scriptura, the latter say yes.

For example, the Catholic Church refuses literal interpretations of the Bible precisely because of what you mention: That the text alone, sacrosanct as it may be, cannot be fully understood by and within itself.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting, I may have to check that out, but I dunno, nothing against Catholicism, but the speaking in unison thing kinda wigs me out, we never did that in our Protestant churches, I dont ever recall ever refering to our selves as protestant, I always thought that was a Church of England thing, but apparently Catholics apply the term to any non-Catholic Christian.
.

That is odd. Were you Anglican? I was raised in both the catholic and episcopal church (which is part of the Anglican Communion), and we did the whole speaking in unison thing at both. I wonder if this varied between the High and Low churches. I had the same experience with not thinking of the Episcopal Church as protestant (in that they seemed to regard themselves as a mean between the two or a kind of catholic light...which is why my mom would agree to go there).

 

[Tonguez]

That is odd. Were you Anglican? I was raised in both the catholic and episcopal church (which is part of the Anglican Communion), and we did the whole speaking in unison thing at both. I wonder if this varied between the High and Low churches. I had the same experience with not thinking of the Episcopal Church as protestant (in that they seemed to regard themselves as a mean between the two or a kind of catholic light...which is why my mom would agree to go there).

well the Anglican Communion is unusual in as much as it considers itself both Catholic* and Reformed, so there is some debate about whether Anglicans can be considered to have followed the Lutheran Protestation.
Anglican Communion is really Catholic sans Pope rather than the full Protestant Reformation that marks other Denominations.

* Catholic as in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church"

 

[Umbran]

Well if we read the proceeding text from Isaiah 14, it becomes clear that it is about the fall of a king of Babylon, possibly Nebuchadnezzar, not an angel

Yes, well, Biblical literalism gets you in trouble very quickly. The book is not entirely self consistent if you take *everything* literally. For example, you have issues with Revelations, which to some clearly refers to the Roman Empire, but that empire no longer exists and judgement day still seems like it is in the future....

If, instead, you consider there is an analogy or metaphor in action here (the King of Babylon is *like* the devil, in that he was angelic and then fell) things become less problematic.

Nice comic book analogy by the way, although some might disagree, I could imagine a priest red in the face screamin, "its not a comic book!!!" lol

Any priest who *screams* at me for making an analogy for the structure that would be understandable to a geek layman... isn't really my problem

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, well, Biblical literalism gets you in trouble very quickly.

And it starts as early as Genesis. If Eve is literally the mother of all humanity- a strong implication from the literal text- then incest is part if the story of mankind. Otherwise, there are other humans out there, and Adam & Eve are not literally the parents of all humanity.

In Genesis 4:1-2, her first kids are Cain & Abel. Abel gets killed, Cain is exiled for the murder in Gen 10-12. But even then, there is an understanding of "other people" besides Cain, Adam and Eve- Cain laments in Gen 4:14 "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.”

By Gen:17, Cain has fathered Enoch with his unnamed wife in a city he is building.

Nowhere is it mentioned in Gen 4:1-16 that Adam & Eve have any other children...so we have a conflict.

 

[The_Silversword]

And it starts as early as Genesis. If Eve is literally the mother of all humanity- a strong implication from the literal text- then incest is part if the story of mankind. Otherwise, there are other humans out there, and Adam & Eve are not literally the parents of all humanity.

In Genesis 4:1-2, her first kids are Cain & Abel. Abel gets killed, Cain is exiled for the murder in Gen 10-12. But even then, there is an understanding of "other people" besides Cain, Adam and Eve- Cain laments in Gen 4:14 "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.”

By Gen:17, Cain has fathered Enoch with his unnamed wife in a city he is building.

Nowhere is it mentioned in Gen 4:1-16 that Adam & Eve have any other children...so we have a conflict.

Well, if you notice, the book of Genesis is laid out in chronological order, so and so begets so and so and so on. Anyways, on the 6th day god creates man, as in humankind, male and female, he tells them to be fruitful and multiply, on the 7th day he rests. The it goes into him creating Adam, so if its all in chronological order, people were already in the world by the time Adam was created in the Garden of Eden, so when Cain was expelled the rest of the world was already populated so he was able to find himself a wife.

Thats my take on it anyways.

 

[The_Silversword]

That is odd. Were you Anglican? I was raised in both the catholic and episcopal church (which is part of the Anglican Communion), and we did the whole speaking in unison thing at both. I wonder if this varied between the High and Low churches. I had the same experience with not thinking of the Episcopal Church as protestant (in that they seemed to regard themselves as a mean between the two or a kind of catholic light...which is why my mom would agree to go there).

No, definitely not Anglican, I havnt been to church since I was a kid, well my wife has dragged me to a few Catholic services, but I dont really remember the denomination that my parents would take me to, I want to say Methodist, but im not 100% sure about that, I would have to double check on that, assuming that church is still there. Basically what I remember about it was that the preacher would talk from the heart instead of reciting prayers or whatever that seemed to be the Catholic way of doing things, from the limited exposure I've had to it.

Now, my grandmother identified as a Southern Baptist, but she had some odd beliefs that I dont think were shared by other Southern Baptists but I could be wrong, for instance, God is white and created white people, and I wasnt allowed to play with dinosaurs at her house cause they wasnt in the Bible, therefore they were the Devil.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, if you notice, the book of Genesis is laid out in chronological order, so and so begets so and so and so on. Anyways, on the 6th day god creates man, as in humankind, male and female, he tells them to be fruitful and multiply, on the 7th day he rests. The it goes into him creating Adam, so if its all in chronological order, people were already in the world by the time Adam was created in the Garden of Eden, so when Cain was expelled the rest of the world was already populated so he was able to find himself a wife.

Thats my take on it anyways.

Genesis isn't quite laid out chronologically.

Genesis 1 is the big overview of the story of creation. So, in Gen. 1:11, God creates plants:

11 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.

Genesis 2 is more detail oriented. It is filling in the details glossed over in Gen 1, as we see quite clearly in Gen 2: 4-5

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 and before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Despite mentioning the flourishing plants in Gen1:11, Gen2:5 clearly discusses a time before the 7th day, a time before any plants grew because there was no rain nor man to till the soil.

So, despite Gen1 mentioning humanity on the 6th day, it doesn't follow that the events of the rest of Genesis are actually after the 7th or even 6th day. Instead, they just detail the events of the 6th day from an immanent and not transcendent perspective.



A thought occurs: given later verbiage about how God perceives and acts in time, it is possible we're still in the 7th day.

 

[Kramodlog]

Nowhere is it mentioned in Gen 4:1-16 that Adam & Eve have any other children...so we have a conflict.

Adam had a third son named Seth. Genesis 5: 4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

Seth obvously was able to reproduce via parthenogenesis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Adam had a third son named Seth. Genesis 5: 4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

Seth obvously was able to reproduce via parthenogenesis.

As I recall, parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction that requires eggs, so unless Seth was a hermaphrodite...

I..I don't know that there is a word for what I'm thinking.