Justus Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Daniel Quinn's Adam and Eve theory Well, if his theory holds that the eternal God created the man and woman on earth called Adam and Eve in the beginning then he apparently missed the passage in Matthew 4:4. [Link] The snake didn't lie. The snake merely said "You will not surely die." Well according the LORD God he did. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44 The serpent was man formed of the mud of the ground, [see, he wrote that he was formed from the dust of the ground [LINK] Now the serpent is going to show you that he was formed from the dust of the ground. He will start by telling you the eternal Gods said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [LINK] [And of a truth, dust are dry particles of the earth.] And then he is going to show you that is written that it had not rained because the eternal God had not made him to care for the Garden. [LINK] [And of a truth, it is written that it did not rain during those days.] Now he is going think he has you rattled and is going to show you that God is a Spirit and provide you with three scriptures [Rev 3:1][Rev 4:5] [Rev 5:6] that serve to witness to there being Gods if you don't believe what he said to the woman that which was written in Genesis 3:5 that if they believed him they would be eternal like the Gods. Then the serpent is going say to you that if you believe him you would be like the eternal Gods, dew you believe me? [Don't believe him, he is lying] The snake merely said "You will not surely die." The physical body of man is formed from the three states of matter, being Solid, Liquid and Gas. That is proven science, the principle is true from the beginning of time and will always be true, it doesn't change. The serpent will tell all things are possible with God so God could make him from the he dust [solid] and the breath [Gas] even if that would only be two of the three states of matter. And thus, if all things are possible with God then it would be possible that he lied [?] it would not be possible for the man to be formed much less evolve without the water [Liquid]. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Thus even with water would only dew the three states of matter to form necessary to form the body of flesh, but without the spirit the body is dead. The spirit is not plasma, or ionized gas. Ionized gas still has mass. The spirit is matter, yet without mass [see photon] Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 1 Cor 2:13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 16, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2014 The snake didn't lie. The snake merely said "You will not surely die." Well according the LORD God he did. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44 But we know that god, himself, is also a liar. We know this because god told Adam that he would surely die the day he ate the fruit. Yet Genesis 5:5 tells us that Adam lived for 930 years. We know that god did not mean it as a spiritual death, because god never mentions anything about Adam having a spirit which could die. We also know that the "day" was not meant to represent an era or unspecified time period because the text plainly tells us that an evening and a morning constituted a "day". god, therefore, blatantly lied to Adam when he said Adam would die the same day he ate the fruit. god is clearly a liar. Why should we believe anything he has to say about the serpent? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 "The spirit is matter, yet without mass [see photon]" --Justus If the spirit was matter, it could be detected and measured. Since we can't detect nor measure it, by definition, it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Justus you are trying to mix a fairy tail with science. (By the way there are four known states of matter.) The things in the Bible didn't happen. It is Hebrew and Aramaic myth that was based on the myths of other cultures. You are also not addressing the questions posed to you in other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven77 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Oh joy, we have another crack KJV apologist amongst us. The Bible doesn't prove the Bible. Science does not and will not prove the Bible. I do enjoy his throwing all sorts quotes at the wall to see what sticks, although little of it applies to the contents of my post that he quoted above. Here's something for you, Justus: Read the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. Or go to his site at Ishmael.org and go to Q&A section. Then get back to me with some serious inquiry and discussion of the topics covered in my threads above. However, it is likely that you will continue to pound your Bible and keep restating your bullshit apologia mixed with bizarre science blabber as you have in most of the threads you've posted in. It's all tired ass shit to most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatest I am Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Universalism is the only rational and just ending in this context. OR, it's a complete bunch of crap. Thanks BAA, for explaining it so thoroughly! I agree and that is why I am a Gnostic Christian and Universalist. Christians hate us as much today as when they decimated us after Constantine bought the church. Literalism is the cause of most of the damage Christianity and Islam have spawned. Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 I would be interested in seeing it, BAA. No hurries though. Ok Storm, there was just one item that I didn't include in my opening article. It dealt with this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat I couldn't find a successful way of squaring that principle (ignorance of the law is considered to be no defense) with one of the conclusions I drew about the Catch-22 predicament God placed Adam and Eve in. . . . "To understand the meaning of God's law ...they would have to break it. They could only get to understand the full meaning of God's law by doing the very thing He forbade them to do. He made the only way for them to understand His law, the very act of breaking it. He made their gaining of knowledge an act of disobedience against Him. He also made this act of understanding a punishable offense. So once they did understand the meaning of God's law - they were immediately guilty of breaking it." . . . Perhaps it doesn't apply at all? Your thoughts? Thanks, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I am going to try to think about this some more, but I think I may see a flaw in your thinking... which may be part of the reason you didn't include it in your OP. "To understand the meaning of God's law ...they would have to break it. They could only get to understand the full meaning of God's law by doing the very thing He forbade them to do. He made the only way for them to understand His law, the very act of breaking it. He made their gaining of knowledge an act of disobedience against Him. He also made this act of understanding a punishable offense. So once they did understand the meaning of God's law - they were immediately guilty of breaking it." To me, the highlighted part in red is flawed because it wasn't the act of gaining understanding that caused them to be punished. The act of disobedience caused them punishment. The result of the disobedience may have been gaining understanding of how the law works and what it means, but the act of eating the fruit against the order of god is what resulted in the punishment. So the highlighted line may be better stated like this: So while the act of disobedience was the punishable offense, once they understood the meaning of God's law, they would have realized then, that they had already broken it. I cannot find anywhere in the Genesis narrative that states that God explained to them what happens to them if they eat the fruit. Other than if they do, they will die. Can we assume that they logically deduced that there may be something special about the fruit that keeps them from being able to eat it? I am not sure. We only know what the fruit does when the serpent reveals what it will do. Do Adam and Eve really understand what the knowledge of good and evil is? This is certainly suspect, since you have clearly mentioned that it takes knowledge and understanding to be able to comprehend what it means. The only place I can think of in the Bible that mentions ignorance of the law is Romans 1:20 where the author basically states that no one is without excuse regarding god: "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." From the context of the passage, I believe it is simply referencing that all are not exempt from God's judgment and that we will be rewarded or punished based on our understanding that he exists, regardless of whether or not we were told the gospel message or not. So we see here that God is not above punishing people regardless of their knowledge of his law or not. So, you might say that this constitutes a pattern of consistency by God. Either God didn't care whether or not Adam and Eve understood his law or not, and expected them to follow regardless, or he made them this way and he found out that they were flawed, or lived in a flawed situational environment, despite his determination that everything was good. I will ruminate on this some more, but these are my preliminary thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 I am going to try to think about this some more, but I think I may see a flaw in your thinking... which may be part of the reason you didn't include it in your OP. "To understand the meaning of God's law ...they would have to break it. They could only get to understand the full meaning of God's law by doing the very thing He forbade them to do. He made the only way for them to understand His law, the very act of breaking it. He made their gaining of knowledge an act of disobedience against Him. He also made this act of understanding a punishable offense. So once they did understand the meaning of God's law - they were immediately guilty of breaking it." To me, the highlighted part in red is flawed because it wasn't the act of gaining understanding that caused them to be punished. The act of disobedience caused them punishment. The result of the disobedience may have been gaining understanding of how the law works and what it means, but the act of eating the fruit against the order of god is what resulted in the punishment. So the highlighted line may be better stated like this: So while the act of disobedience was the punishable offense, once they understood the meaning of God's law, they would have realized then, that they had already broken it. I cannot find anywhere in the Genesis narrative that states that God explained to them what happens to them if they eat the fruit. Other than if they do, they will die. Can we assume that they logically deduced that there may be something special about the fruit that keeps them from being able to eat it? I am not sure. We only know what the fruit does when the serpent reveals what it will do. Do Adam and Eve really understand what the knowledge of good and evil is? This is certainly suspect, since you have clearly mentioned that it takes knowledge and understanding to be able to comprehend what it means. The only place I can think of in the Bible that mentions ignorance of the law is Romans 1:20 where the author basically states that no one is without excuse regarding god: "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." From the context of the passage, I believe it is simply referencing that all are not exempt from God's judgment and that we will be rewarded or punished based on our understanding that he exists, regardless of whether or not we were told the gospel message or not. So we see here that God is not above punishing people regardless of their knowledge of his law or not. So, you might say that this constitutes a pattern of consistency by God. Either God didn't care whether or not Adam and Eve understood his law or not, and expected them to follow regardless, or he made them this way and he found out that they were flawed, or lived in a flawed situational environment, despite his determination that everything was good. I will ruminate on this some more, but these are my preliminary thoughts. "So while the act of disobedience was the punishable offense, once they understood the meaning of God's law, they would have realized then, that they had already broken it." Agree... at first glance, Storm. (Rumination needed.) . . . Yet the outcome is still the same. A & E are still punished by God for an act of disobedience, the full ramifications (REWARD they understood, but PUNISHMENT they didn't) of which they couldn't have understood. All that's changed here is the order in which the events take place. The end result is just the same. BAA Once they understood, Adam and Eve were guilty of breaking God's law. By then it was too late. Storm Once they broke God's law, Adam and Eve were able to understand what it meant. By then it was too late. . . . Either way they (and us) are being screwed by God. Thanks, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts