The Lion Problem in Genesis

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Biblical scholars have debated for centuries about the "lion problem". It has been second only to the "two-creations" problem. As with many of the contradictions in Genesis there are many different theories.

Literalist Interpretation[edit]

Biblical literalists insist that there is no "lion problem". For one thing, the King James Version uses the phrase "furry-maned beast", which leaves room for questions as to the nature of the "beast". However, the original Hebrew is quite clear that the ill-fated animal was ha-lev ha-gadol, or "the big pussy cat". Either way, since one of the "lions" was not fatally injured, parthenogenesis may have occurred, allowing for continuation of the baramin.

Talmud[edit]

Babylonian Jewish sources, as well as more modern (18th century CE) Zohar scholars, have identified at least 11 different numeric codes hidden in the "passage of the lion". Most point toward the lion representing a non-divisible dybbuk-like entity, perhaps one of the prophets inhabiting the likeness of the Fifth Rebbe of Lodz. The rest is commentary; go and learn it.

Catholic Canon[edit]

Pope Leo X solved the lion problem in his 3rd encyclical, issued in 410 AD. There he declared that the lion did in fact lie down with the lamb, and all further "lions" are hybrids thereof.

Eastern Orthodox Interpretations[edit]

At the Fifth Conference of Abbyssinia in the 6th century AD, it was decided that the lion, being of utmost importance to God, was both "beast" and "man", and, as man is inherently divine, by the additive property of divinity, the lion is also divine, hence normal physical laws do not apply.

Anglican[edit]

It is generally agreed that Anglicans do not particularly care about this problem.

See soccer

Islam[edit]

Modern Islamic scholars...