Adam Gets My Eve

June 9, 2013

First thing I want to say is, yes, those things are harsh and hard to understand. However it's critical to understand God's true intentions for man. You have to first look at the beginning to see what God truly desired for our lives. Was there slavery in the beginning? Was there sexism or man being seen as the dominant figure in the beginning? Was there rape in the beginning? Was there even death in the beginning? No. Also if the Ten Commandments and all the other laws were the tip top things God wanted humans to have, why didn't He give those things to Adam and Eve? So this is the main thing that should be seen. All those things you mentioned, is not how God desired for man to live.

The Bible is very easy to understand. You simply have to start from the truth. The only thing that makes understanding the Bible hard is trying to force it into being the Word of God. Your declarations for what God desires are no better or worse then all the other people who have tried to create God however they wish.

So now getting into those things you mentioned concerning those laws. Let me start with the jealous husband, and the wife having to drink contaminated water. Yes, I agree with you this definitely sounds barbaric, harsh, nonsensical. However again you have to look at a couple of things. First, the people had proof of God's existence, or should have had proof. God delivered them out of Egypt by a great showing of power. He split a large body of water so the people could walk through it. He provided them with bread that fell from the sky and so on. If the people had this large amount of evidence to God's existence and so forth, they have reason to trust His judgments. Normally, drinking something like describe here, could possibly kill the person who drunk it. However, again if you see all that evidence concerning God prior, then He is certainly able to protect the woman from becoming sick when drinking this water. This whole ceremony as it were, happened before the Lord, so He was supervising it if you will and it's one of those things where you say, "Don't try this at home." Yeah, but seriously, if the people have seen God do all those things in the past, He was able to protect the woman. And if a woman were to go through this once, I doubt they would go through it again.

The people did not have proof of God's existence. There was no Exodus from Egypt. That was fiction. This law was first introduced around the time of King Josiah. The priest created the law and then lied about finding it in the temple. There was no evidence that God was real. It was just old stories built upon old stories. If God was real and going to intervene then why not show up and accuse rather than save? Do you understand what I mean by that? You have a priest pray over the woman and if no angel shows up she is innocent. This test would fit right in with voodoo or any Hindu guru side show. The Bible simply comes from pagan sources.

Now the law concerning rape victims having to marry their rapist. This one being if the woman wasn't betrothed. Again this one definitely seems harsh. One thing we have to realize partly with this is that marriage was seen as a way to provide for the woman. The punishment for the rapist was to provide for the woman for the rest of his life. Yet this law doesn't take into account the woman's feelings about marrying him. I think the question could be asked, if the woman objected, would it still be required she marry her rapist? If the father objected, would that have mattered? Yet spirit of this law is for the rapist to take care of the woman whom he harmed, for the rest of his life. (and no, he couldn't abuse her)

Okay.

Concerning stoning rebellious children, of course these children were old enough to understand the Law. They were probably young adults here. So the choice to be rebellious was a conscious decision.

It was the inspiration for the Taliban. The laws were written by barbaric men.

Last thing I want to say about the Law, Jesus put it into proper perspective. God spoke concerning man back in Genesis, that the imagination of our hearts is evil from our youth. Jesus confirms it's our thoughts that we yield to, pretty much condemns us. Jesus said if you look with lust, you break the commandment not to commit adultery. If you hate someone, you break the commandment not to murder. So the rapist mentioned in that law, murdered that woman in his heart, broke the command not to commit adultery, all while violating her. All those things are worthy of his death.

Do you see the problem. There should have been no need for Jesus to put it into proper perspective. It should have been perfect because it was given by God. This is a trick played by men trying to put away an older religion but keep the authority for the new religion they were creating.

Other quick mentions, the mixing of fabric was a symbolic thing. The ultimate result for doing so, was probably just the clothes wearing out quicker than those which are made with the same material. The priests wore mostly linen, so they wouldn't sweat as much or at all while they were working. So that was mostly symbolic stuff with the clothes. Yes, Christians do oppose certain sins and ignore others. That's more hypocrisy than anything else. I don't think it has much to do with the culture of the people of Israel back then, and the cultures we have now. Logically thinking, even if perfect laws came to us in this day, and it was put into how we understand things right now, if it demands we keep it perfectly or else, we would still have problems with it.

I think the death God called for wasn't symbolic. The Bible is full of unjust laws and unjust penalties.

We would all die, unless the one who gave the laws was merciful. The issue with slavery, you have to look at everything the Bible says concerning it. Yes, there are verses that say you could treat your slave as you wish, but if you injured them, they were to be set free. If you killed them, you would be punished, most likely with your own death. (Eye for eye) You couldn't kidnap a person, something that went on concerning American slavery. Anyone found with a kidnapped slave would be put to death. So there were multiple things in place to protect the slave, if the people followed what the Law demanded. The genocide episodes in Scripture, was God's judgment. The driving out of the Canaanite tribes was because of the wickedness of the people therein. This kind of judgment isn't something God takes lightly. It's not something He just thought up one day. Just like is seen in Genesis 6 before the flood, God was patient with all these people. However, the time came where a judgment must be dealt.

You don't get it. Since you are not Jewish then God's original plan for your life is that you be killed by the Jewish army, that your wife and sons be killed, that your property belongs to Jewish warriors and any daughter you have will become a sex slave. That is God's original loving plan for your life.

Finally with Job, it's implied they still had an existence after their death, because God didn't double Job's children. There's no other explanation for why He doesn't give Job 14 children. Either God can't count (or you would say the person writing the story can't count), or Job's children that died still existed in some form. That form of course, is their spirit in Sheol.

Provide a verse that states they were not gone. Provide a verse that says their soul was in Sheol. If you can't do that then it doesn't say it. In their culture the inheritance was divided between the children so doubling the estate without doubling the inheritance would double the wealth that Job's children would inherit. Sorry but without a verse you are creating your own interpretation to fit your own needs. We have thousands of denominations and sects and translations. It doesn't fly.

Some other quick mentions, Adam and Eve knew they would have children. We know God blessed them to multiply on the face of the earth. (Of course I'm aware that scholars see Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as different accounts, but I can argue from 2 that Adam and Eve knew they could have children) They probably didn't know their children would suffer from their actions, but I would consider that as moot, or it doesn't bare any real significance concerning God's character. Even if the children didn't physically from the traits Adam passed down, because Adam and Eve were suffering, the children would be filled with sorrow for the sake of their parents. No, Adam and Eve didn't discuss with their children about Jesus, but we can assume they taught them about the goodness of God. Cain and Abel knew about God from what is written, and they brought Him offerings. After Cain killed his brother, God showed him mercy. So Cain experienced God's mercy, and could have told his children. That becomes pretty much a main theme. All of that would have pointed the people to lean on God's mercy, and the story with Noah would have taught the people to lean on God's favor. Those things being a precursor for a Jesus. Yet I argue what I stated concerning Adam and Eve, what they knew and so on, comes from a straightfoward reading of the story. That it wouldn't make sense (even if the story was made up) for Adam and Eve to have no kind of knowledge whatsoever.

They are not a precursor for Jesus. Jesus wasn't invented for hundreds of years later. Ezra took a generic story (Adam and Eve) and forced it into being the first two humans on Earth. If he had bothered to think about it that means the 2nd generation has to marry their own siblings. When you look at a genealogy chart for the great grand kids it would look absolutely deplorable.

Adam-Eve Adam-Eve Adam-Eve Adam-Eve

\ / \ /

Seth-Seth's Sister Seth's Brother-Seth's other Sister

\ /

Grand Child

Think about it. Most people have 4 great grandfathers and 4 great grandmothers. These poor guys had one of each. It's absurd. The story doesn't make sense.

June 9, 2013

Heavenese, I suggest you look into what folk are saying here. I am in agreement.

DNA has no purity. This is simply apologetic BS from idiots that do not understand basic biology. DNA has us linked 98% to chimps as our nearest cousins. Evolution is true and cannot happen in a biblical time frame.

You need to learn about Occam's Razor. Basically that means dismissing that which does not follow logic. That which is left is likely the truth.

I am going to provide two examples here.

Exodus and the giving of the laws at Mt Sinai.

According to the bible 2-6M folk fled Egypt, there are no records of this in Egypt (clue one)

I have posted the water requirements umpteen times. We need 2l water a day to survive in a temperate climate like where you and I live w/o overexertion. Trust me on the math on this I have done the math.

To supply the 6M folk (humans only) had they had modern water tankers 20kilo litre ea, nose to tail, that would be a convoy ~8.3km long, they only had camels or donkeys that also need water. Miriam's well and the rock of horeb does not work either. Assuming a woman collected 10l ea for a family of 5, the well or rock would need to service ~27 women per second in a 12 hour day. You can work out how long that queue would be, the campsite at 10 x 10 m would extend to 11km x 11km (that is a city sized setup and when you consider sewage, it becomes even more ludicrous as no one would shit on their doorstep.)

The feast of unleavened bread eaten within the same 24hour period they fled, happened 230 miles from where they departed from. Modern 4x4s cannot do the trip in that time.

The population would have been larger than that of China at the time.

Occam's Razor demands you dismiss this as myth or embellished folklore. It also means that the laws issued were probably not given by any sky god.

Even the bible suggests Moses as the author. He had the whole scene set up for sky god to talk to them but then they said, we are afraid, rather you talk to us. And from that juncture all the laws start off with ""And the lord said unto Moses....." Look it up.

Global flood

The fludd never happened. Antarctic ice cores date between 400,000 and 730,000 years where precipitation is less than 2" per year. land bound ice floats. We have living trees older than 6000 years. Lake varves and river deltas the world over show no evidence of a ww fludd.

Occam's razor demands you dismiss everything about the story.

These two are key in the myth of Jesus as his lineage traces back through these two events back to Adam. If they never happened, how can the story of Jesus be true?

We have Sumerian tablets dated to around 9000BCE, 3000 years before Adam and Eve.

Why do the idiots at AiG set a variable of 9000 - 15000 years for creation? It is to cater for these known findings that refute the biblical timeline and account. The oldest inland lake varves in Russia has data extending millions of years. So the apologists suggest a local fludd and make shit up as they go along b/c 99% of believers do not read or study the bible. They have to keep the ignorant ignorant so that the myth can survive, w/o the myth, religion fails and the huge amounts of money behind it.

There are no historical facts in the bible, NONE.

June 9, 2013

The reason why I believe God inspired a true account of history, while not inspiring a true scientific account of how the world works, is because God put gave the word to the people in terms they could understand. The people could understand our history concerning origins. Yet they couldn't understand how stars work or thoughts of bacteria and so forth. A lot of scientific discovery happened with the invention of certain tools. (Telescopes being one) So how were the people going to understand all that science? Most people today don't half understand science, and most would put me in that category as well. Yet origins is different. Now I would be told that science tells us our origins is different from what is presented in Genesis. Yet our science is derived from the observations we make. Who's to say we are seeing everything we need to make a statement concerning our origins? I think there's something missing, and that's what I'm looking for, to see if there is something missing. I like to say there's a missing science concerning Genesis. Ultimately, I'm looking for evidence, and I don't expect anyone to just believe or listen to anything I'm saying without concrete evidence. So this is probably more of a personal pursuit. I do believe even if I'm completely wrong, again most will say I am given the scientific evidence we have and so forth, I like to think I will stumble across a big scientific discovery by chance.

If God let men write a bible that they could understand with their little knowledge why isn't he "updating" the bible on regular terms? If he really cares so much about people understanding his word, why do we have to use an outdated version that only applies to a certain time and region?

June 9, 2013

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you Heavenese

I'm not going to quote it but you talk in depth about some of the Old Testament laws regarding rape victims marrying their rapists, stoning of disobediant children etc.

I fail to see why you cannot see this is barbaric behaviour. I'm sorry, but it is. You talk about how you doubt that these rules were alwyas enforced. So? They were laws dicated by 'God' in his all knowing, all loving capacity. Does it matter how many people were actually stoned? Some presumeabley were, and this was considered ok? Is that not barbaric?

And you also say that the rape victim's 'may not' have been forced to marry their rapists. Again, there is no evidence for this being true, and given the bibled degrading attitude towards women I doubt that the women's feeling's would have been considered. But we do not know how often or indeed how this law was executed. We just know it's in the Bible. Doesn't it strike you as barbaric that this was EVER considered the right thing to do?

I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but to me these are some of the worst passages of the Bible and I cannot understand how you can not see them as barbaric.

June 10, 2013

I short, god set Adam and Eve up to fail.

June 10, 2013

If God let men write a bible that they could understand with their little knowledge why isn't he "updating" the bible on regular terms? If he really cares so much about people understanding his word, why do we have to use an outdated version that only applies to a certain time and region?

Here is how "God" should have done this.

OT: Word of God

NT: Word of God V1.5

Then at about the 1700s or so, "God" should have had people create "Word of God V2"

Then when the 20th century began, there should have been a "Word of God V3"

And for the current times we live in, Word of God V3 should have been modified to fit with the times, so "Word of God V3.5"

But then again, if "God" existed, he would probably think an outdated version that confuses people is good enough. Considering the kind of deity he was, any person who does or ever supported equal rights for women would be on their way to Hell. Anyone who fought against slavery or still does (in some places where slavery still happens) are and were fighting against things the Bible defended. Christians who were and are against slavery might not be on their way to Hell, but "God" would probably have laughed and said, "Why the hell are you fighting against slavery? There's nothing immoral about owning other people as property. There is nothing wrong with abusing slaves either, as long as they don't die."

June 10, 2013

If God let men write a bible that they could understand with their little knowledge why isn't he "updating" the bible on regular terms? If he really cares so much about people understanding his word, why do we have to use an outdated version that only applies to a certain time and region?

Here is how "God" should have done this.

OT: Word of God

NT: Word of God V1.5

Then at about the 1700s or so, "God" should have had people create "Word of God V2"

Then when the 20th century began, there should have been a "Word of God V3"

And for the current times we live in, Word of God V3 should have been modified to fit with the times, so "Word of God V3.5"

But then again, if "God" existed, he would probably think an outdated version that confuses people is good enough. Considering the kind of deity he was, any person who does or ever supported equal rights for women would be on their way to Hell. Anyone who fought against slavery or still does (in some places where slavery still happens) are and were fighting against things the Bible defended. Christians who were and are against slavery might not be on their way to Hell, but "God" would probably have laughed and said, "Why the hell are you fighting against slavery? There's nothing immoral about owning other people as property. There is nothing wrong with abusing slaves either, as long as they don't die."

Didn't you miss the memo?

word of god updated to V2 with Jesus V3 with Islam then there was V3.5 that was Mormonism. Then God got all frustrated with all the bugs and glitches he gave us God Vista which is scientology. Although I think "God vista" is a step back from "Word of God V3.5" I am looking forward to "Word of God 4" I heard the rumors that there would be no god involved this time and greater user input and control

June 10, 2013

OMG! Here we go again with the historical thing and the Bible... NO, no, no

The Bible fails so bad when it comes to history it isn't even funny... I've been over this in DETAIL in the Lion's Den. GENESIS is a rewriting of an older Mesopotamian mythology (especially the second account) written long before the Hebrews even existed as a people (OH MY! there were people before the Hebrews? Yes.. quite a few and more advanced/civilized). Abram (Abraham) was from Ur.. Babylonia/Akkadia.. probably brought the mythology with him (or whoever it was.. maybe a group) and melded it with the Canaanite pantheon. (El Elyon, etc...) Any honest historian will tell you that most of the 'historical' accounts in the Bible have little evidence, if any at all - and there is a whole lot of political propaganda and rewriting. So why believe it about events that supposedly occurred long before writing? Events that are scientifically ridiculous? (2 people are the progenitors of the entire human race? bwahahaha.. not possible genetically.. and then another bottleneck at Noah of 8 people, 4 of whom were related? I won't even go into the whole flood thing... )

Scientifically the Egyptians and the Greeks knew more about science than the Hebrews ever did... WAY more. So saying they couldn't understand it is ridiculous.. some of our modern science is based on scientific principles and discoveries by the Greeks long before Jesus was ever born. I call baloney on this. Our ancestors didn't have the same kind of technology we have but they weren't STUPID.. if anything they may have been more intelligent (they sure as heck worked harder.. maybe because they didn't have tv) - and if you read any classical works you may understand why I say this.

Philisophically, theologically and morally.. it doesn't work either, because unless there are texts to confirm.. no one KNOWS what state the alleged Adam and Eve were in, how much knowledge and understanding they had.. and the texts we do have are pretty clear that they did NOT know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil... because that is what the alleged fruit bestowed on them.. so it would be a punishment for a lack of blind obedience. (sounds familiar) Nice. Doesn't sound much like a companion status at all - more a slave/master relationship.. as is pointed out in several above posts. (At least the Annunaki were honest about creating man as a slave race) Pure apologetics of the worst kind... this making excuses for Yahweh, and making up rationalizations for texts has got to stop!

So bad history, bad philosophy, bad morality, incredibly bad science.. and Yahweh is most definitely bloodthirsty - THAT is apparent throughout the OT. Japhtheth anyone? Genocide after genocide... misogyny, racism, sacrifice.. the streets must have run with blood with all the ritual sacrifice that's required in the Law.... not unlike the Aztecs really. Yahweh likes his blood.

What your saying might be true. (For me, it might be true, I'm still testing these things out) You can't say the ancients knew science, as the method we know as science wasn't developed until 1400s-1500s. Yes they understood things, but they didn't have the concept we have today. So, we shouldn't expect the Hebrew people to write in great detail, things we know today should we? Yet understanding the actions of ancestors, and a subject like history, they could understand. Yet the main point of this thread was to discuss the story of Adam and Eve. I already admitted my knowledge of science isn't full. Some of you are saying I'm changing Genesis to fit a scientific mode, to keep the myth alive as it were. We'll see, or I'll see. I have reason to view Genesis in this light, and I'm doing it from the text. I'm not adding anything at all. I'm simply taking our science, and viewing Genesis with the knowledge we have today. Is that out of bounds? Certainly not if your asking me. Again this is an issue over origins. Our science is great, but it's limited to our observations today. What if there are very key things that we don't observe today? How are we going to get the full picture of life without those things. And this line of questioning is not out of bounds either. So when it comes to the science angle of this dicussion, let me look into these things for myself. I never persuaded anyone to believe me concerning science, or believe my claims to Adam and Eve literally existing. Right now, I believe there's reason to look into the matter, because believe me when I say, no one fully has just yet.

Now back to the original topic. Some of you have encouraged me to look at Genesis with an unbiased mind. I also encourage you to read Genesis as well with the same unbiased mind, and see what I'm saying is reasonable. We keep mentioning that Adam and Eve were clueless. So how do you explain the need for the serpent to be deceptive? If Adam and Eve had no knowledge, why didn't they just eat of the fruit on their own? Again I say, even if the story is just made up stuff, there is still reason within it. Some of you ask me for a verse to say Adam and Eve were orginally created to live forever. There's more within the text to suggest they wouldn't have died, than to suggest they would have died even if they didn't eat of the tree. So if we are to argue whether or not Adam and Eve were created to live forever, there's more in the text that suggest I'm right, in that they were created for eternity.

I've shown verses from the text that argues my points. I encourage everyone to read my posts again.

I have to say heavanese your are filling in a lot of holes in the scripture to suit your needs. Please point to a verse that spells out what you are saying. Show me a verse that states adam and eve would not die. What verse states that you can assume what you want? You cant assume anything. Also the problem with the serpant is the moment he conceived to create the serpant he knew what it was capable of and what was in its heart. He did nothing to protect eve.

It's clear that the only thing dealing with death, is if they ate from the tree. If they never ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it's a safe assumption that they wouldn't have died. Look at how long Adam lived for instance, that's pretty unbelievable right. If Adam didn't eat from that tree, from what is written, I'd say God created him to live forever. There's more arguing this is the case. Now let me ask why do you assume he was going to die anyway? What is your case here?

DNA adapts to survive, or better adaptions continue on to produce more offspring. I don't argue against this. It would fit in with the story of Adam and Eve. Yet I yet to accept the idea of common descent with this. Yes, I'm definitely incorporating what we know now into the Genesis account, but I'm not chaning what the account says. I'm just using science to fill in the blanks. I argue from what is written in Daniel concerning knowledge in general would increase. (On another forum I had a discussion concerning this) So our knowledge is definitely increasing, and I'm of the belief that Genesis couldn't be fully understood until this day and age. At the same time, I don't deny the evidence that seemingly goes against what Genesis states, but I believe there is more evidence yet to be unraveled concerning origin. I'm not going to try to convince you anything with this, because my research is still young.

Of course DNA does not fit in with Adam and Eve. We can look at the DNA of people who are alive right now and see the DNA that was passed down from their rodent ancestors. We can examine the DNA from nearly any other mammal and find DNA from the same ancestors. You don't understand the science. Science doesn't fill in the blanks. Science renders the whole story false. You want science to provide fancy words for your personal use but you deny the knowledge science uncovers.

I know all of this, I never eally argued against what the evidence points to necessarily. As far as the dealing with science, I'm of the opinion there might be more to understand. I know what things look like, but I want to study this out more for myself. You see God would have created all of us. As far as DNA and God goes, He probably used the same code, with varying differences. I know all the evidence of ERVs and all of that. I'm wondering if there is more to understand. So that is my deal concerning the science angle of this discussion.

First thing I want to say is, yes, those things are harsh and hard to understand. However it's critical to understand God's true intentions for man. You have to first look at the beginning to see what God truly desired for our lives. Was there slavery in the beginning? Was there sexism or man being seen as the dominant figure in the beginning? Was there rape in the beginning? Was there even death in the beginning? No. Also if the Ten Commandments and all the other laws were the tip top things God wanted humans to have, why didn't He give those things to Adam and Eve? So this is the main thing that should be seen. All those things you mentioned, is not how God desired for man to live.

The Bible is very easy to understand. You simply have to start from the truth. The only thing that makes understanding the Bible hard is trying to force it into being the Word of God. Your declarations for what God desires are no better or worse then all the other people who have tried to create God however they wish.

So now getting into those things you mentioned concerning those laws. Let me start with the jealous husband, and the wife having to drink contaminated water. Yes, I agree with you this definitely sounds barbaric, harsh, nonsensical. However again you have to look at a couple of things. First, the people had proof of God's existence, or should have had proof. God delivered them out of Egypt by a great showing of power. He split a large body of water so the people could walk through it. He provided them with bread that fell from the sky and so on. If the people had this large amount of evidence to God's existence and so forth, they have reason to trust His judgments. Normally, drinking something like describe here, could possibly kill the person who drunk it. However, again if you see all that evidence concerning God prior, then He is certainly able to protect the woman from becoming sick when drinking this water. This whole ceremony as it were, happened before the Lord, so He was supervising it if you will and it's one of those things where you say, "Don't try this at home." Yeah, but seriously, if the people have seen God do all those things in the past, He was able to protect the woman. And if a woman were to go through this once, I doubt they would go through it again.

The people did not have proof of God's existence. There was no Exodus from Egypt. That was fiction. This law was first introduced around the time of King Josiah. The priest created the law and then lied about finding it in the temple. There was no evidence that God was real. It was just old stories built upon old stories. If God was real and going to intervene then why not show up and accuse rather than save? Do you understand what I mean by that? You have a priest pray over the woman and if no angel shows up she is innocent. This test would fit right in with voodoo or any Hindu guru side show. The Bible simply comes from pagan sources.

Now the law concerning rape victims having to marry their rapist. This one being if the woman wasn't betrothed. Again this one definitely seems harsh. One thing we have to realize partly with this is that marriage was seen as a way to provide for the woman. The punishment for the rapist was to provide for the woman for the rest of his life. Yet this law doesn't take into account the woman's feelings about marrying him. I think the question could be asked, if the woman objected, would it still be required she marry her rapist? If the father objected, would that have mattered? Yet spirit of this law is for the rapist to take care of the woman whom he harmed, for the rest of his life. (and no, he couldn't abuse her)

Okay.

Concerning stoning rebellious children, of course these children were old enough to understand the Law. They were probably young adults here. So the choice to be rebellious was a conscious decision.

It was the inspiration for the Taliban. The laws were written by barbaric men.

Last thing I want to say about the Law, Jesus put it into proper perspective. God spoke concerning man back in Genesis, that the imagination of our hearts is evil from our youth. Jesus confirms it's our thoughts that we yield to, pretty much condemns us. Jesus said if you look with lust, you break the commandment not to commit adultery. If you hate someone, you break the commandment not to murder. So the rapist mentioned in that law, murdered that woman in his heart, broke the command not to commit adultery, all while violating her. All those things are worthy of his death.

Do you see the problem. There should have been no need for Jesus to put it into proper perspective. It should have been perfect because it was given by God. This is a trick played by men trying to put away an older religion but keep the authority for the new religion they were creating.

Other quick mentions, the mixing of fabric was a symbolic thing. The ultimate result for doing so, was probably just the clothes wearing out quicker than those which are made with the same material. The priests wore mostly linen, so they wouldn't sweat as much or at all while they were working. So that was mostly symbolic stuff with the clothes. Yes, Christians do oppose certain sins and ignore others. That's more hypocrisy than anything else. I don't think it has much to do with the culture of the people of Israel back then, and the cultures we have now. Logically thinking, even if perfect laws came to us in this day, and it was put into how we understand things right now, if it demands we keep it perfectly or else, we would still have problems with it.

I think the death God called for wasn't symbolic. The Bible is full of unjust laws and unjust penalties.

We would all die, unless the one who gave the laws was merciful. The issue with slavery, you have to look at everything the Bible says concerning it. Yes, there are verses that say you could treat your slave as you wish, but if you injured them, they were to be set free. If you killed them, you would be punished, most likely with your own death. (Eye for eye) You couldn't kidnap a person, something that went on concerning American slavery. Anyone found with a kidnapped slave would be put to death. So there were multiple things in place to protect the slave, if the people followed what the Law demanded. The genocide episodes in Scripture, was God's judgment. The driving out of the Canaanite tribes was because of the wickedness of the people therein. This kind of judgment isn't something God takes lightly. It's not something He just thought up one day. Just like is seen in Genesis 6 before the flood, God was patient with all these people. However, the time came where a judgment must be dealt.

You don't get it. Since you are not Jewish then God's original plan for your life is that you be killed by the Jewish army, that your wife and sons be killed, that your property belongs to Jewish warriors and any daughter you have will become a sex slave. That is God's original loving plan for your life.

Finally with Job, it's implied they still had an existence after their death, because God didn't double Job's children. There's no other explanation for why He doesn't give Job 14 children. Either God can't count (or you would say the person writing the story can't count), or Job's children that died still existed in some form. That form of course, is their spirit in Sheol.

Provide a verse that states they were not gone. Provide a verse that says their soul was in Sheol. If you can't do that then it doesn't say it. In their culture the inheritance was divided between the children so doubling the estate without doubling the inheritance would double the wealth that Job's children would inherit. Sorry but without a verse you are creating your own interpretation to fit your own needs. We have thousands of denominations and sects and translations. It doesn't fly.

Some other quick mentions, Adam and Eve knew they would have children. We know God blessed them to multiply on the face of the earth. (Of course I'm aware that scholars see Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as different accounts, but I can argue from 2 that Adam and Eve knew they could have children) They probably didn't know their children would suffer from their actions, but I would consider that as moot, or it doesn't bare any real significance concerning God's character. Even if the children didn't physically from the traits Adam passed down, because Adam and Eve were suffering, the children would be filled with sorrow for the sake of their parents. No, Adam and Eve didn't discuss with their children about Jesus, but we can assume they taught them about the goodness of God. Cain and Abel knew about God from what is written, and they brought Him offerings. After Cain killed his brother, God showed him mercy. So Cain experienced God's mercy, and could have told his children. That becomes pretty much a main theme. All of that would have pointed the people to lean on God's mercy, and the story with Noah would have taught the people to lean on God's favor. Those things being a precursor for a Jesus. Yet I argue what I stated concerning Adam and Eve, what they knew and so on, comes from a straightfoward reading of the story. That it wouldn't make sense (even if the story was made up) for Adam and Eve to have no kind of knowledge whatsoever.

They are not a precursor for Jesus. Jesus wasn't invented for hundreds of years later. Ezra took a generic story (Adam and Eve) and forced it into being the first two humans on Earth. If he had bothered to think about it that means the 2nd generation has to marry their own siblings. When you look at a genealogy chart for the great grand kids it would look absolutely deplorable.

Adam-Eve Adam-Eve Adam-Eve Adam-Eve

\ / \ /

Seth-Seth's Sister Seth's Brother-Seth's other Sister

\ /

Grand Child

Think about it. Most people have 4 great grandfathers and 4 great grandmothers. These poor guys had one of each. It's absurd. The story doesn't make sense.

I think I answered a little bit of your responses with my responses to others here. A couple of quick things, the Law wasn't introduced around Josiah's time. The only book that came about during that time was Deuteronomy. I had discussions on another forum that suggested this book was made up, in an attempt to get the people to be obedient again or what have you. Of course all of this goes back into the Documentary Hypothesis. Yet besides all that, the Law was in existence well before Josiah. I also don't argue against that what we see today as the modern Tanakh, came about during the time of Ezra. That's all good, but the Law was around well before then. The same with written accounts of Israel's history. I have a lot to say concerning these things, and some interesting thoughts to study, but that is getting off topic again.

Even though the Law was given by God, people put their spin on it just the same. That was why Jesus had to put things back in their proper perpective. You mentioned about the barbaric nature of the Law, yet again any law can be barbaric to us if it demands perfection or else. Of course lastly, there's something to be understood concerning the genetics of Adam, Eve, and their children. I'm not saying you should believe me, I'm not trying to convince you without evidence. That's for me to look into. As I do, know that I'm not making stuff up and putting my views into the account so it can stay afloat if you will. The text demands I look at it this way, after all, Adam lived to be over 900 years old. The account demands that life was different. Even the ancient people back then would have come to this conclusion, unless their family also lived over 900 years.

Heavenese, I suggest you look into what folk are saying here. I am in agreement.

DNA has no purity. This is simply apologetic BS from idiots that do not understand basic biology. DNA has us linked 98% to chimps as our nearest cousins. Evolution is true and cannot happen in a biblical time frame.

You need to learn about Occam's Razor. Basically that means dismissing that which does not follow logic. That which is left is likely the truth.

I am going to provide two examples here.

Exodus and the giving of the laws at Mt Sinai.

According to the bible 2-6M folk fled Egypt, there are no records of this in Egypt (clue one)

I have posted the water requirements umpteen times. We need 2l water a day to survive in a temperate climate like where you and I live w/o overexertion. Trust me on the math on this I have done the math.

To supply the 6M folk (humans only) had they had modern water tankers 20kilo litre ea, nose to tail, that would be a convoy ~8.3km long, they only had camels or donkeys that also need water. Miriam's well and the rock of horeb does not work either. Assuming a woman collected 10l ea for a family of 5, the well or rock would need to service ~27 women per second in a 12 hour day. You can work out how long that queue would be, the campsite at 10 x 10 m would extend to 11km x 11km (that is a city sized setup and when you consider sewage, it becomes even more ludicrous as no one would shit on their doorstep.)

The feast of unleavened bread eaten within the same 24hour period they fled, happened 230 miles from where they departed from. Modern 4x4s cannot do the trip in that time.

The population would have been larger than that of China at the time.

Occam's Razor demands you dismiss this as myth or embellished folklore. It also means that the laws issued were probably not given by any sky god.

Even the bible suggests Moses as the author. He had the whole scene set up for sky god to talk to them but then they said, we are afraid, rather you talk to us. And from that juncture all the laws start off with ""And the lord said unto Moses....." Look it up.

Global flood

The fludd never happened. Antarctic ice cores date between 400,000 and 730,000 years where precipitation is less than 2" per year. land bound ice floats. We have living trees older than 6000 years. Lake varves and river deltas the world over show no evidence of a ww fludd.

Occam's razor demands you dismiss everything about the story.

These two are key in the myth of Jesus as his lineage traces back through these two events back to Adam. If they never happened, how can the story of Jesus be true?

We have Sumerian tablets dated to around 9000BCE, 3000 years before Adam and Eve.

Why do the idiots at AiG set a variable of 9000 - 15000 years for creation? It is to cater for these known findings that refute the biblical timeline and account. The oldest inland lake varves in Russia has data extending millions of years. So the apologists suggest a local fludd and make shit up as they go along b/c 99% of believers do not read or study the bible. They have to keep the ignorant ignorant so that the myth can survive, w/o the myth, religion fails and the huge amounts of money behind it.

There are no historical facts in the bible, NONE.

I hear all the things you are saying LL, and again it's getting into the scientific angle of the discussion. I'm still figuring these things out for myself, probably from a different angle than most here. Yet it's a reasonable angle if you ask me. Could those numbers been exgerrated in the Bible? Possibly. Yet if I were to discover evidence of an Exodus, evidence of a mountain the people encamped around, and evidence that they did indeed invade the Canaanite region, then I prove events that is mentioned in the Bible did happen. The numbers part of the story wouldn't matter that much then. That doesn't mean the inquiry you did into the subject, and others have done meant nothing to disprove the account isn't historical. I'm still looking into these things myself. I do find historical aspects that we do know concerning Egyptian history, to be insteresting. If the Exodus took place, it would have had to happen around the midpoint of 1500-1400BC/BCE. (Maybe 1453 BC/BCE) Four hundred years prior to that, the Hyksos ruled the northern part of Egypt. God told Abraham for four hundred years his people would be enslaved, then right after He would bring them out. Also in the account of Exodus, we are told a new king arose over Egypt, and he enslaved the Israelites. The Israelites reportedly dwelt in northern Egypt, the same area the Hyskos invaded. So when you put all of this stuff together, it makes some very interesting thought for sure if you ask me. Also, a very important woman ruled over Egypt around 1500-1450s BC/BCE. (Her name being Hatshepsut) She had no son of her own. We are told Moses was adopted by the daughter of a pharaoh. Some interesting stuff happened conerning her life, that could possibly give more sense to the Exodus story as a whole. All of these things I'm looking into and are very interesting.

I don't blame everyone here for not accepting the scientific angle I mention concerning Genesis. I don't expect them to and never persuaded anyone to. I mentioned before that I'm looking for solid evidence to these things, and this is my own personal search. Of course if I made anyone mad here with my discussions, it's probably my fault. I don't know what kind of discussions I expected to have, I do know where everyone is coming from. Of course here in this sub-forum concerning Christian theology, I thought I might lay down some of my thoughts, that I do believe are quite reasonable from what we have in the text. I happily argue my points there , but concerning the actual science, that's something I'm looking into.

The reason why I believe God inspired a true account of history, while not inspiring a true scientific account of how the world works, is because God put gave the word to the people in terms they could understand. The people could understand our history concerning origins. Yet they couldn't understand how stars work or thoughts of bacteria and so forth. A lot of scientific discovery happened with the invention of certain tools. (Telescopes being one) So how were the people going to understand all that science? Most people today don't half understand science, and most would put me in that category as well. Yet origins is different. Now I would be told that science tells us our origins is different from what is presented in Genesis. Yet our science is derived from the observations we make. Who's to say we are seeing everything we need to make a statement concerning our origins? I think there's something missing, and that's what I'm looking for, to see if there is something missing. I like to say there's a missing science concerning Genesis. Ultimately, I'm looking for evidence, and I don't expect anyone to just believe or listen to anything I'm saying without concrete evidence. So this is probably more of a personal pursuit. I do believe even if I'm completely wrong, again most will say I am given the scientific evidence we have and so forth, I like to think I will stumble across a big scientific discovery by chance.

If God let men write a bible that they could understand with their little knowledge why isn't he "updating" the bible on regular terms? If he really cares so much about people understanding his word, why do we have to use an outdated version that only applies to a certain time and region?

It doesn't need updating, just the understanding gets better. I mentioned about Daniel, in how it's said knowledge would increase. I've been disputed with concerning that verse, but I still believe it means general knowledge. Which includes our method of science, that interestingly enough increases our knowledge everyday.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you Heavenese

I'm not going to quote it but you talk in depth about some of the Old Testament laws regarding rape victims marrying their rapists, stoning of disobediant children etc.

I fail to see why you cannot see this is barbaric behaviour. I'm sorry, but it is. You talk about how you doubt that these rules were alwyas enforced. So? They were laws dicated by 'God' in his all knowing, all loving capacity. Does it matter how many people were actually stoned? Some presumeabley were, and this was considered ok? Is that not barbaric?

And you also say that the rape victim's 'may not' have been forced to marry their rapists. Again, there is no evidence for this being true, and given the bibled degrading attitude towards women I doubt that the women's feeling's would have been considered. But we do not know how often or indeed how this law was executed. We just know it's in the Bible. Doesn't it strike you as barbaric that this was EVER considered the right thing to do?

I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but to me these are some of the worst passages of the Bible and I cannot understand how you can not see them as barbaric.

And again, yes, they seem barbaric and harsh. However I reckon any law that demands perfection or punishment would seem barbaric to us. The commands don't take into account our flaws, in fact it punishes our flaws. The only thing redeeming about the Law that covers our flaws, are the sacrifices. Yet death is very present with this Law. Paul called it the ministry of death.

I won't comment any further about the things mentioned concerning rape victims marrying their rapists and the stoning of children. The discussion requires more in depth discussion, that puts emotion aside. The main thing we need to take from the Law, is that anything that requires perfection or else, would be barbaric to us.

June 10, 2013

"It's clear that the only thing dealing with death, is if they ate from the tree. If they never ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it's a safe assumption that they wouldn't have died. Look at how long Adam lived for instance, that's pretty unbelievable right. If Adam didn't eat from that tree, from what is written, I'd say God created him to live forever. There's more arguing this is the case. Now let me ask why do you assume he was going to die anyway? What is your case here?"

its doesn't matter how many people you have arguing the case it doesn't matter how long Adam lived, he did die did he not? I pointed out specifically where my concept came that they were mortal in that they had a concept of death. They were aware of what that meant because God stated that they would die if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We can only understand 1 thing in the creation of Adam and Eve they were aware of their own mortality on the basis that they understood what death was. A child has to learn what death is often they will see another animal die or a familial member this is when we start to learn about mortality. It is not ingrained into our psyche. So from this evidence we can gather that Adam and Eve knew what death is from experience otherwise again we cant blame them from eating of the fruit because they did not know what death was.

You still have not backed up your case that they would have lived forever with a biblical verse.

Here is mine

²The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil

clearly stating there was a concept of death that was established. And I bolded the point that the serpent was telling the truth for you

and here god confirming the serpent told the truth as well as confirming they were indeed mortal

²¹The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. ²²And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Here is the key point "He must not be allowed to...live forever"

This clearly points out that they were mortal. Your whole concept of assuming they would live forever is false. Whoever has taught you this has deceived you. You cant assume anything this is just your way of pointing out that you are purposely filling in BLANKS that do not confirm or deny your belief structure. Where the bible is absent on the matter you just fill in whatever you want. However this is coming from you not the bible . So if you remove your personal bias My point stands even more clearly than you could have anticipated. You cannot point to a single bible verse that supports your position yet I can point to two. Do you not see this as an Issue?

June 10, 2013

"And again, yes, they seem barbaric and harsh. However I reckon any law that demands perfection or punishment would seem barbaric to us. The commands don't take into account our flaws, in fact it punishes our flaws. The only thing redeeming about the Law that covers our flaws, are the sacrifices. Yet death is very present with this Law. Paul called it the ministry of death.

I won't comment any further about the things mentioned concerning rape victims marrying their rapists and the stoning of children. The discussion requires more in depth discussion, that puts emotion aside. The main thing we need to take from the Law, is that anything that requires perfection or else, would be barbaric to us."

This would fit into a discussion about objective vs subjective morality would you like to discuss this further? also do you believe in objective morality?

June 10, 2013

Perhaps reply to one poster at a time, your posts are getting to the TL;DR lengths. I know you are putting effort into them

I hear all the things you are saying LL, and again it's getting into the scientific angle of the discussion. I'm still figuring these things out for myself, probably from a different angle than most here. Yet it's a reasonable angle if you ask me. Could those numbers been exgerrated in the Bible? Possibly. Yet if I were to discover evidence of an Exodus, evidence of a mountain the people encamped around, and evidence that they did indeed invade the Canaanite region, then I prove events that is mentioned in the Bible did happen. The numbers part of the story wouldn't matter that much then. That doesn't mean the inquiry you did into the subject, and others have done meant nothing to disprove the account isn't historical. I'm still looking into these things myself. I do find historical aspects that we do know concerning Egyptian history, to be insteresting. If the Exodus took place, it would have had to happen around the midpoint of 1500-1400BC/BCE. (Maybe 1453 BC/BCE) Four hundred years prior to that, the Hyksos ruled the northern part of Egypt. God told Abraham for four hundred years his people would be enslaved, then right after He would bring them out. Also in the account of Exodus, we are told a new king arose over Egypt, and he enslaved the Israelites. The Israelites reportedly dwelt in northern Egypt, the same area the Hyskos invaded. So when you put all of this stuff together, it makes some very interesting thought for sure if you ask me. Also, a very important woman ruled over Egypt around 1500-1450s BC/BCE. (Her name being Hatshepsut) She had no son of her own. We are told Moses was adopted by the daughter of a pharaoh. Some interesting stuff happened conerning her life, that could possibly give more sense to the Exodus story as a whole. All of these things I'm looking into and are very interesting.

I don't blame everyone here for not accepting the scientific angle I mention concerning Genesis. I don't expect them to and never persuaded anyone to. I mentioned before that I'm looking for solid evidence to these things, and this is my own personal search. Of course if I made anyone mad here with my discussions, it's probably my fault. I don't know what kind of discussions I expected to have, I do know where everyone is coming from. Of course here in this sub-forum concerning Christian theology, I thought I might lay down some of my thoughts, that I do believe are quite reasonable from what we have in the text. I happily argue my points there , but concerning the actual science, that's something I'm looking into.

The bolded part. I am sure you realise that a real city or a real geographic location proves nothing. All fiction uses real places so to use that logic and extrapolate, we have to accept Harry Potter is real too?

Were these numbers real, outside of the math, the Romans would not have stood a chance to occupy Israel. Just look at the huge costs of Iraq and Afg as far as the US is concerned. Yes superior weapons and tech but still a challenge to support.

Read up on Masada and see that these humble Jews were cowards not the heroes portrayed in the OT. We still have real evidence of that tale. They all committed suicide. I wonder why that story never made it into the bible?

Population of Jerusalem today 801k and this is where it all played out back then. Now we have desalination plants providing potable water, nothing like that back then. To make any of this fit, you soon find yourself grasping at straws.

June 10, 2013

I know all of this, I never eally argued against what the evidence points to necessarily. As far as the dealing with science, I'm of the opinion there might be more to understand. I know what things look like, but I want to study this out more for myself. You see God would have created all of us. As far as DNA and God goes, He probably used the same code, with varying differences. I know all the evidence of ERVs and all of that. I'm wondering if there is more to understand. So that is my deal concerning the science angle of this discussion.

{snip}

I think I answered a little bit of your responses with my responses to others here. A couple of quick things, the Law wasn't introduced around Josiah's time. The only book that came about during that time was Deuteronomy. I had discussions on another forum that suggested this book was made up, in an attempt to get the people to be obedient again or what have you. Of course all of this goes back into the Documentary Hypothesis. Yet besides all that, the Law was in existence well before Josiah. I also don't argue against that what we see today as the modern Tanakh, came about during the time of Ezra. That's all good, but the Law was around well before then. The same with written accounts of Israel's history. I have a lot to say concerning these things, and some interesting thoughts to study, but that is getting off topic again.

Even though the Law was given by God, people put their spin on it just the same. That was why Jesus had to put things back in their proper perpective. You mentioned about the barbaric nature of the Law, yet again any law can be barbaric to us if it demands perfection or else. Of course lastly, there's something to be understood concerning the genetics of Adam, Eve, and their children. I'm not saying you should believe me, I'm not trying to convince you without evidence. That's for me to look into. As I do, know that I'm not making stuff up and putting my views into the account so it can stay afloat if you will. The text demands I look at it this way, after all, Adam lived to be over 900 years old. The account demands that life was different. Even the ancient people back then would have come to this conclusion, unless their family also lived over 900 years.

Hevenese do you notice how your words in orange contradict your words in grey? Which is it? Do you see what the science points to or do you still think God would have created? It cannot be both.

The oldest part of the Bible is a section of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy came long before Genesis, long before exodus, before the rest. It was created in the time of King Josiah. There was no Moses. The Law of Moses was invented by King Josiah in order to get the people to obey King Josiah. When King Josiah's priests read the law it was the first time the people had heard it. Though the Law of Moses was loosely based on an older Egyptian religion.

Do you have evidence that the law was around before King Josiah? Assuming it was (faith) is not evidence. I don't find this off-topic because textual analysis that demonstrates Adam and Eve are myth is very pertinent to the meaning of Adam and Eve.

The Law of Moses wasn't given by any God because there is no God. This God myth is less real than the mythical Moses. There was no Jesus to put things back into perspective by telling everybody to ignore all of the Laws of Moses. The texts do not demand that you create these apologetics. The men who wrote them couldn't even imagine the flaws we have found. They were ignorant barbarians who lived back in the Bronze Age. The average High School grad knows more about writing than the Bible authors did.

June 11, 2013

Why didn't God just make Adam 1.5, is because He loved Adam and Eve too much to just throw them away in the trash.

Why didn't he just sterilize them then? No Cain and Abel issues. No Seth. No anyone else. Once they're out of the picture, because of this "love," then you can start over with a clean slate. It's not like there's no flood coming real soon where "love" gets trumped by a whole lot of water and this idea that "god" is too nice to kill flies right out the window anyhow. But forgetting about that a real quick snip-snip on both Adam and Eve (and the snake just to be certain), solves the reproduction issues and they get to live a nice long life without causing issues for any offspring. Reboot the world at this point and you're good to go (repeat until you get a decent outcome instead of "sinners" if you like). No redemption or other gibberish needed. Although you may have an afterlife full of failed Adam, Eves and snakes. Better than the alternative.

I agree Adam and Eve didn't have the concept of good and evil, but they did violate the conscience they did have. Today, kicking animals would be seen as wrong. Our conscience would tell us this is wrong. However, if Adam for instance kicked a cat, his consciousness wouldn't have condemned him. Yet Adam did know about the command God gave him. So to him and Eve, disobeying this command was evil to them. This is the consciousness they did have, and was held accountable to it. We have to remember this tree was the knowledge of good and evil, and not the knowledge of being able to keep a command from God.

And again, I believe we can derive from the text that God was not lying. For one, Adam didn't confront God and say, "I haven't died, so the snake was telling the truth." There's something to be had from the language of God's words concerning death. Another view is death did happen that day, in the death of an animal who's skin was used to cover Adam and Eve. They did eventually die, so perhaps that is what God meant. (They would surely die, but it didn't have to necessarily be that day)

The last (transliterated) part of Genesis 2:17 is "hemera phagete ap autou thanato apothaneisthe" (LXX) which is (fairly literally) "day eat from [refers to self 'you'] death dies". There is no "surely" or "certainly" here. Same in the Hebrew I've looked at (using Bibleworks 7). It's nowhere in these verses. There's no way to move from what is here to "eventually" as in "eventually you will die." What is there is difficult enough to translate to something meaningful. Most leave it off while it's "dying thou dost die" in the YLT version. To me it seems like "death dies" is what would happen if one were to eat from a Tree of Life but that's just me.

mwc

June 11, 2013

Hi Heaven

You seem pretty cool for an Xer. At least you are wondering and not telling us we are ll going to hell.

I think it's sad that you had to spend so much finger time writing defending god. I suffered a lot when i was younger because of some things other people did to me and I can ASSURE you that no amount of wrangling words could succor my suffering. You can say "God loves you!" SO? Who needs the love of one who is not here helping? That is just stupid.

If it does not make sense to a ten year old don't ask me to fall for it, but thanks for coming by. You are not an A hole at least.

June 13, 2013

"It's clear that the only thing dealing with death, is if they ate from the tree. If they never ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it's a safe assumption that they wouldn't have died. Look at how long Adam lived for instance, that's pretty unbelievable right. If Adam didn't eat from that tree, from what is written, I'd say God created him to live forever. There's more arguing this is the case. Now let me ask why do you assume he was going to die anyway? What is your case here?"

its doesn't matter how many people you have arguing the case it doesn't matter how long Adam lived, he did die did he not? I pointed out specifically where my concept came that they were mortal in that they had a concept of death. They were aware of what that meant because God stated that they would die if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We can only understand 1 thing in the creation of Adam and Eve they were aware of their own mortality on the basis that they understood what death was. A child has to learn what death is often they will see another animal die or a familial member this is when we start to learn about mortality. It is not ingrained into our psyche. So from this evidence we can gather that Adam and Eve knew what death is from experience otherwise again we cant blame them from eating of the fruit because they did not know what death was.

You still have not backed up your case that they would have lived forever with a biblical verse.

Here is mine

²The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil

clearly stating there was a concept of death that was established. And I bolded the point that the serpent was telling the truth for you

and here god confirming the serpent told the truth as well as confirming they were indeed mortal

²¹The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. ²²And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Here is the key point "He must not be allowed to...live forever"

This clearly points out that they were mortal. Your whole concept of assuming they would live forever is false. Whoever has taught you this has deceived you. You cant assume anything this is just your way of pointing out that you are purposely filling in BLANKS that do not confirm or deny your belief structure. Where the bible is absent on the matter you just fill in whatever you want. However this is coming from you not the bible . So if you remove your personal bias My point stands even more clearly than you could have anticipated. You cannot point to a single bible verse that supports your position yet I can point to two. Do you not see this as an Issue?

It is interesting to point out how long he lived. His age tells he was special. We can't view him like an ordinary person. When you take that into account, and the only reason he died was because he ate of that tree, it's not far-fetched at all to say Adam was created forever. Whether or not Adam knew what death was, doesn't mean anything concerning if he was mortal. Think about it, why does God have to tell Adam he will return to dust, if Adam already knew he was returning to dust? Why does God say he will die if he eats of that tree, if he already knew he was going to die anyway?

The argument that Adam and Eve were mortal because God said they would live forever if they ate of the tree of life isn't a good one. For one, there was a definite change once they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You can say that change was them becoming mortal. (Hence God saying they would die if they ate of that tree) So if their mortal now, eating from the tree of life would make them live forever. This is after they have become mortal. So you can't say they were always mortal from that statement, because the statement came after they disobeyed God, and the change in them took place. (The account says Adam and Eve's eyes were opened) Again, before hand, God had no problem with them eating from the Tree of Life.

So no one deceived me about this stuff, I examined and looked over it for myself. Again, what's written in Scripture holds more weight concerning my view than yours.

"And again, yes, they seem barbaric and harsh. However I reckon any law that demands perfection or punishment would seem barbaric to us. The commands don't take into account our flaws, in fact it punishes our flaws. The only thing redeeming about the Law that covers our flaws, are the sacrifices. Yet death is very present with this Law. Paul called it the ministry of death.

I won't comment any further about the things mentioned concerning rape victims marrying their rapists and the stoning of children. The discussion requires more in depth discussion, that puts emotion aside. The main thing we need to take from the Law, is that anything that requires perfection or else, would be barbaric to us."

This would fit into a discussion about objective vs subjective morality would you like to discuss this further? also do you believe in objective morality?

I leave that discussion for another day.

Perhaps reply to one poster at a time, your posts are getting to the TL;DR lengths. I know you are putting effort into them

I hear all the things you are saying LL, and again it's getting into the scientific angle of the discussion. I'm still figuring these things out for myself, probably from a different angle than most here. Yet it's a reasonable angle if you ask me. Could those numbers been exgerrated in the Bible? Possibly. Yet if I were to discover evidence of an Exodus, evidence of a mountain the people encamped around, and evidence that they did indeed invade the Canaanite region, then I prove events that is mentioned in the Bible did happen. The numbers part of the story wouldn't matter that much then. That doesn't mean the inquiry you did into the subject, and others have done meant nothing to disprove the account isn't historical. I'm still looking into these things myself. I do find historical aspects that we do know concerning Egyptian history, to be insteresting. If the Exodus took place, it would have had to happen around the midpoint of 1500-1400BC/BCE. (Maybe 1453 BC/BCE) Four hundred years prior to that, the Hyksos ruled the northern part of Egypt. God told Abraham for four hundred years his people would be enslaved, then right after He would bring them out. Also in the account of Exodus, we are told a new king arose over Egypt, and he enslaved the Israelites. The Israelites reportedly dwelt in northern Egypt, the same area the Hyskos invaded. So when you put all of this stuff together, it makes some very interesting thought for sure if you ask me. Also, a very important woman ruled over Egypt around 1500-1450s BC/BCE. (Her name being Hatshepsut) She had no son of her own. We are told Moses was adopted by the daughter of a pharaoh. Some interesting stuff happened conerning her life, that could possibly give more sense to the Exodus story as a whole. All of these things I'm looking into and are very interesting.

I don't blame everyone here for not accepting the scientific angle I mention concerning Genesis. I don't expect them to and never persuaded anyone to. I mentioned before that I'm looking for solid evidence to these things, and this is my own personal search. Of course if I made anyone mad here with my discussions, it's probably my fault. I don't know what kind of discussions I expected to have, I do know where everyone is coming from. Of course here in this sub-forum concerning Christian theology, I thought I might lay down some of my thoughts, that I do believe are quite reasonable from what we have in the text. I happily argue my points there , but concerning the actual science, that's something I'm looking into.

The bolded part. I am sure you realise that a real city or a real geographic location proves nothing. All fiction uses real places so to use that logic and extrapolate, we have to accept Harry Potter is real too?

Were these numbers real, outside of the math, the Romans would not have stood a chance to occupy Israel. Just look at the huge costs of Iraq and Afg as far as the US is concerned. Yes superior weapons and tech but still a challenge to support.

Read up on Masada and see that these humble Jews were cowards not the heroes portrayed in the OT. We still have real evidence of that tale. They all committed suicide. I wonder why that story never made it into the bible?

Population of Jerusalem today 801k and this is where it all played out back then. Now we have desalination plants providing potable water, nothing like that back then. To make any of this fit, you soon find yourself grasping at straws.

I don't know if I understand what you mean concerning if the numbers were real, the Romans would not have stood a chance in occupying Israel. Of course looking at what the Bible said concerning the Israelites during the Exodus period, most of them died. Not all 2 million people (I think in your other post you said 6 million. I don't think that is what the Bible said concerning the numbers correct me if I'm wrong) made it to the promise land. You also mentioned in your first post about the feast of unleavened bread taking place in a 24 hour period, 230 miles from where they departed. Can you point to some Scripture concerning this point. We know the first Passover took place in Egypt. The second one as we know happened a year later.

And with all that said, I hate to say because of course you don't believe it, there is also the God factor here if we are to assume the Exodus actually took place. The Israelites traveled both day and night, and only set up camp and rested when God told them to, or when God stopped moving because they were following Him. He was in a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night. One said He was their air conditioning by day, and heater by night. So overexertion wouldn't be a problem here. The Bible says that there clothes didn't even wear out in the 40 years they were wandering. So it wasn't 6 million people but 2 million is suggest by the account. (Of course there's a study into the translations concerning these numbers, I never really looked into it) Most didn't enter into the land, and there was the God factor.

You're right concerning my post length. I usually leave and come back after a day or two, and there's a bunch of posts waiting for my response. I believe everyone discussed all these things about as good as we can. I'll take my leave for now. I enjoyed these discussions, and I plan to return with more information to discuss.

@ mymistake

I believe there is still something to understand. I know what the science is saying, and again my knowledge concerning the science isn't great, I know what it's saying. However, I believe there's more to be understood. This is my expectations, or things I'm looking at. It's hard to explain. Go back and read my posts where I talk about how some hundreds of billions of years from now, any creature doing science in that day will say the universe is a hundred thousand years old depending on the size of their galaxy. Reason being they will not see the light from other galaxies, due to the expansion of the universe. We see here that science is based on observation. I believe there's something we aren't seeing concerning our knowledge of what DNA is telling us, and how it relates to something like common descent.

And again, Deuteronomy is actually that youngest book out of the first five. It was claimed to be found around the time Josiah was on the throne. The accounts that made up Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus, are older than anything written in Deuteronomy by hundreds of years.

@ mwc

Adam and Eve had to have children now, once they became corrupt. If you consider what God told Eve about her seed crushing the head of the serpent. (Christians see that as a verse referring to Jesus) So if God made them sterile, they would never be redeemed because Jesus wouldn't have come along.

@ RachelSkates

I hear what you're saying.

June 13, 2013

why does God have to tell Adam he will return to dust, if Adam already knew he was returning to dust? he had a taste for prose Why does God say he will die if he eats of that tree, if he already knew he was going to die anyway? Why do we have labels on poisons if we are all going to die anyways why do we have labels on things that can kill us

heavenese I am not trying to be factious. But your still just formulating your opinions into the bible. Please point out the bible verse that says Adam was immortal? Your argument is as valid as me saying that Adam was African we don't know the skin color of adam because its not recorded is it? the Age is not telling because that could be how long he was supposed to live anyways your whole argument is nothing more than an opinion. Also why give them the need to reproduce if they are going to live forever? you don't know that the fruit changed him physiologically all it is said to have done was given him knowledge of good and evil.

I don't think we can argue this point anymore you continue to bring up the same argument even though I have completely established it as a baseless argument both with logic and the bible. I don't know how I can further this discussion if you continue to rehash old arguments without taking into account what I have said. If you will please point out how the Bible supports your position more than mine I would be eager to glean this information. if you are going to claim its from the bible use the bible show me what verses give you this impression if you cant I will just accept that you have conceded the point but you just do not want to admit it. This is fine I understand how hard it is to admit that the bible is not what it is said to have been. This is why I will give you the option either argue your point using the bible and not your opinion or someone else's opinion or we can move back to how Adam and eve did not sin because they did not have the concept of what sin was and the serpent confused what conscience they did have. Your choice if you choose the latter I will accept that you conceded this argument.

June 13, 2013

@Heavenese

"Adam and Eve had to have children now, once they became corrupt. If you consider what God told Eve about her seed crushing the head of the serpent. (Christians see that as a verse referring to Jesus) So if God made them sterile, they would never be redeemed because Jesus wouldn't have come along."

So the only way that Adam and Eve could ever be redeemed is for them to populate the planet with corrupt offspring and for "God" to wait a few thousand years full of animal sacrifices just so he could send a human version of himself to kill it? I would think "God" could very easily have made Adam and Eve sterile and created new humans to populate the planet. He could have had Adam and Eve redeem themselves with his help through some kind of ritual or something.

Either the story of the fall of man is just some primitive explanation for why there is suffering, death, and corruption in the world, or the universe was built by a god who behaves like a corrupt politician by forcing everyone to be born corrupt, against their will, because of the actions of our ancestors and appears as though he planned on Adam and Eve disobeying him from the very beginning, for reasons we may not understand. Don't forget that when he killed the human version of himself, it was only then that he decided to tell all humans about the mysterious Guantanamo of the afterlife where everyone who is not redeemed through Christ goes, regardless of the sin. It doesn't matter if the sin is genocide or just thinking about how sexually attractive your neighbor's wife is.

June 13, 2013

If you are just going to make things up as you go along then why not Invisible Pink Unicorns?

June 13, 2013

@ mwc

Adam and Eve had to have children now, once they became corrupt. If you consider what God told Eve about her seed crushing the head of the serpent. (Christians see that as a verse referring to Jesus) So if God made them sterile, they would never be redeemed because Jesus wouldn't have come along.

They "had to?" Exactly how does "redemption" apply to Adam and Eve? Who do they "belong" to in order to be redeemed from? They're supposedly now simply corrupt, correct?

In Genesis 4 we find (NRSV):

7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

This is where "god" itself defines to Cain how sin works. It's a personified type of thing, like an animal, that can come for and destroy a person, or the person can overcome it on their very own. There is no mention, out of the very "mouth" of "god" that mentions a redemption aspect. Being taken hostage and some sort of price having to be paid in return or anything anywhere along those lines. Nothing at all. Not just silence but an entirely alternate explanation given to the very people you're trying to tell me require redemption.

Stopping Adam and Eve from having offspring stops the supposed "corruption" from continuing plain and simple.

mwc

June 13, 2013

@Heavenese: I don't know ancient Hebrew and don't know if I would have the patience necessary to learn it or not, so "surely" could just be a translation of the ancient Hebrew equivalent of "eventually". I honestly don't know. But regardless of when Adam and Eve were supposed to die, the story presents an unjust god.

1. If their god is real and the story is true then they were created so that they were easy enough to be deceived for the snake to successfully deceive them. The snake would have been created so that it could be extremely deceptive. If Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree because the snake deceived them, "God" is at fault because he purposefully made the snake deceptive and Adam and Eve susceptible to its trickery and put them together, knowing the most likely result of this situation.

2. If we were to assume that Adam and Eve were not deceived and they just ate the fruit because they wanted to, maybe thinking that the snake was an idiot for trying to deceive them, that still does not justify all of nature being forced to suffer because of the actions of Adam and Eve. A god that is just would have punished only Adam, Eve, and the snake. Suffering and death wouldn't just all at once become genetic in all living things. A god that causes or allows all living things to suffer because of the actions of 3 creatures, must be sadistic. What other possible reason could there be?

3. The Biblical example of God's mercy is not at all like feeling pity for someone hanging over a cliff and trying to help them. I've got a scenario for you: Imagine a hiker fell over the edge of a cliff and managed to grab the edge before falling to their death. They are hanging there but are unable to pull themselves up the rest of the way. They call out for help and suddenly, a man appears above them. The hiker says, "Help me." The guy above him says, "I will help you, but you need to do some things first. You must agree to be my slave no matter what, once you have been saved. You must tell everyone else to become my slaves too. If at any time you ever doubt me and decide to stop being my slave, I will throw you over the cliff and not save you a second time. If you do not agree to my terms I will stamp on your fingers and watch you fall." The "mercy" of the Bible god is exactly like that of the man standing above the hiker. If you don't agree to do everything he says, he crushes your fingers and you fall into a lake of fire. If you agree but later on stop being a good slave, he throws you over the edge into a lake of fire.

Christians are able to heal with their god's power, only in theory, it appears. There are a lot of Christians in this world, some of them good people. If they can heal anyone with magical god power then why don't they go into children's hospitals that are filled with sick and dying children, heal them all, and walk out with a massive crowd of perfectly healthy children? If this does not happen, then either all Christians that have this god power must not give a crap about healing anyone and are in hiding, the god of the Bible must want these children to suffer and die horrible deaths, thus not giving any Christians the ability to heal, or the miracle healing by faith stuff is just total nonsense made up by members of a cult that started 2000 years ago.

Now when it fully comes to the story of Adam and Eve, just for arguments sake that it really happened, we don't have all the information. Genesis actually requires you to fill in the blanks, but to do it from what is written and from what we know about life in general. We don't have enough information from the story to say God purposely made the snake to deceive Adam and Eve, or God purposely made Eve gullible. Yet I can tell you from what is written in Genesis 6, God never intended for that to happen. In fact from Genesis 6, we see that the animals corrupted their way on earth just like men, and that would tell us that animals to had some sense of free will and moral responsibility. Again in Genesis 6, here God says He regrets creating man. So with that, we can definitely say God never intended for man to fall in the Garden of Eden, and He didn't intend for man to suffer at all. (He didn't even intend for us to sweat, both literally and figuratively, when we worked.)

To your second point, as to why does God make everyone suffer for the actions of three creatures, again I have to say it's in the genetics. To define it better, we get our genes from our parents. Once Adam and Eve fell (that change which took place within them, that they could now see they were naked), their DNA became corrupt. Their DNA reflected God in the beginning, or they had God-like DNA. However there was a disconnect once they went their own way from God. Apart from Him, that God-like DNA couldn't maintain itself. So the immortal became mortal. (Interesting to note, is Genesis the only creation story in the world that has humans like god figures in the beginning?) So once the fall took place, we simply inherited their genes, hince why we suffer because of their actions. That's how I see it at least. It may seem unfair, but that is simply how God made things to be. We still have free will choice, and we are ultimately not held accountable for Adam and Eve's choices.

I have a lot to say concerning Genesis, and I feel I stay true to the text. I look and think about this subject a little more deeply than most. Yet even if my views are the correct way to see Genesis, it means nothing because it doesn't literally prove the story. What I'm really after is evidence. That's something else altogether.

That scenario you gave is a harsh one. I would disagree. All God offers us is amazing things, life. It's not God offering us this or else, that is making us choose Him against our will. He's offering us salvation from this world filled with pain. God doesn't have to do anything, and we still suffer in this world. Here's the way I see it, if God exists and He is good, everything dealing with good is with Him. By that I mean it's a good thing to have health. Health comes from God. It's a good thing to be able to relax. Relaxation comes from God. Every good thing comes from Him. That without Him, you will be without every good thing. While we are here on this earth, we experience a little bit of what life is like with and without God. So if we have the evidence and everything else, we make our choice whether to be with God or to go our own way.

As for why Christians don't clear out hospitals with God's power, again it's either one or two things here. One, the Christian God doesn't exist. Or two, Christians are not speaking the Gospel like it's supposed to be taught. There's no question throughout the past almost 2000 years, people put their own spin on Christianity. So much so, that when I actually began studing the Gospels and NT myself, I almost considered I was reading a completely different book than what my ancestors were reading. We are taught that God went with the disciples everywhere, confirming their word concerning the Gospel. God confirmed the word by the working of miracles. So I said to myself, God is not going to confirm something that is not His word. So I researching if it might be reason 2 whether than reason 1 here. Though I'm sure you could probably find discussion around the world of miracles like children being healed, but we probably couldn't confirm it.

I talked earlier concerning awareness. How I personally find it hard to believe that the universe could become aware of itself. Even if Genesis is not real, and God is not real, I still find us more amazing that all the galaxies combined. If you personally asked me my opinion concerning God if He created the universe and all those galaxies, what was His purpose of doing so, for one I would tell you because He is a creator. He's an artist. He enjoys creating things. Secondly, we always dreamed of seeing these things up close. I believe we will, once this age is over with. So He created those things for us to enjoy, perhaps even giving us our own planet or star to enjoy. The possibilites are endless concerning the purpose of all those galaxies. Though these are just my personal thoughts.

Are you a Mormon?

This creator and artist you speak of is not found anywhere in the bible. I used to think just like you. It was how I reconciled observable and irrefutable evidence in the real world with my faith. For example: I used to live in the Pacific Northwest in an area that was shaped by the Vashon glacier which receded some 14,000 years ago. It existed and shaped the landscape for many eons before it receded and left such beautiful scenery. The current geology of the area is far older than the given age of the Earth in the bible. Now I live in the great plains where an ancient and vast inland sea once existed. Fossils of marine life can be found here where the elevation is around 2000 feet above sea level. How did those get here? These are observable facts that do not align with any theology from the bible. To say Goddidit is to say that god created an illusion along with the uncountable galaxies who's light took millions of light years to reach Earth. Is god a liar? Is he trying to trick us? The Dispensationalist will try to stretch the timeline of the bible to fit the Earth as we observe it, but this becomes an exercise in word manipulation and numbers games. It's all nonsense. The creator and artist you speak of is called SPAG. It's Self Projection as God. It's a fanciful idea but found nowhere in the bible. I looked there myself and found nothing of the sort. Instead I found absurd stories and yarns spun by a barbaric and misogynistic culture in the iron age with iron age understanding of the universe.

Think critically for a moment. Is it really possible for a man to kill 1000 other men with a donkey jawbone?

No, I'm not mormon. Of course I don't have a denomination. I don't necessarily deny the things you mentioned, but I see enough things in the world that makes me think there's more to it then what we currently observe. Unlike most creationists, I do have some primitive hypothesis and ideas for experimentation. My thought is when it comes to origins, I question do we have enough observation today, to make any ultimate statements about our past. What if something very key is missing, that without it, we get a different answer to our origin, but it's not true. For instance, scientists believe the universe will continue to expand. One day, we won't be able to see the light of distant galaxies, but only the light coming from the stars within a galaxy. Any species doing science in that day would say the universe is only 100,000 thousand years old. (Or however big that galaxy is in star light distance)

Right now we only know 4% of what the universe is made up of. (Matter) The other 96% is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Those are big questions marks. Who's to say there isn't a rule working in deep space, that allows us to see for off distances, without that light actually traveling those distances for us to see them? So these are the things I'm thinking on. I don't deny people who wrote the Bible didn't know how the world worked and so on. Yet I still argue, if God exists, they gave a true account of history.

To the posts I haven't respond to yet, I'll be back to respond to them.

This is a ridiculous statement. What light do you suppose we are seeing now of the distant galaxies? Answer: It would be the stars from within them! A galaxy is nothing but a collection of light emitting stars illuminating the all the matter contained within. You are suggesting there is some form of dark matter that bends the rules of physics and makes the Universe appear to be something other that what we clearly observe. That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. We live in a world that looks exactly like one without any gods. You are going to great lengths to try and shoehorn a god into a Universe that looks exactly like one without any. Talking snakes, trees that give immortal life, and disk shaped worlds with domes over them do not exist. You obviously believe these things were real at one time and the rest of us don't. Many of us did at one point in our lives but were intellectually honest with ourselves and decided talking snakes are the thing of myths. You use a lot of weasel words like might or maybe to make statements about the 1st chapter of Genesis that are simply not supported in the bible whatsoever. Do you have doubts about the validity of the bible or are you preaching to us in a dishonest way?

June 13, 2013

Hi! I'm new here and still a Christian. I would like to have some discussion here on your points.

When Adam and Eve were created, they had knowledge. They were God conscience, or conscience of their relationship with God. No, they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, but anything going against God would have been considered evil to them. A lot of times we look at those words "good and evil" in an absolute sense. That before Adam and Eve ate of this tree, they didn't have no concept of right or wrong. Yet what it really means is having your own sense judgement about things. Determining for yourself whether something is good or bad. So Adam's conscience was on God before the eating of that tree, and the things God spoke was good to him. That was why God punished Adam and Eve for eating of the tree, because they went against that original conscience.

I suppose the next four pages have hashed this over as I'm 12 days behind, but what the heck...

"No they didn't have knowledge of good and evil....."

"But they had knowledge of evil..."

I think if they had their own sense of judgement about things (knowledge of good and evil) they would not need to concern themselves with a tree. It would be irrelevant, redundant.

Has anyone mentioned yet that a loving parent doesnt leave dangerous items around to tempt their children? "Now Johnny, dont play with that loaded .357 that I am leaving right here in plain sight on the coffee table... for if you mess with it you shall surely die...ok Johnny, I'm leaving the room now...remember don't play with the .357...right there...wink wink."

June 13, 2013

Before hand, they were free to eat of this tree, as God stated they could freely eat of any tree in the garden except the one of the knowledge of good and evil. So why does God not want them to eat of this tree now? Well, here's my opinion on it. Whatever state Adam and Eve were in, once they eat of the Tree of Life, they would remain in that state forever. Now with them being corrupt, God didn't want them to eat of the Tree of Life to remain corrupt forever. If they did, they could never be in God's presence again. So those are my thoughts based on what we have in the story. They could have certainly eat from the Tree of Life before the incident, but God's words indicate they never ate from this tree before. The only reason for not wanting them to eat and live forever now, is because they would remain as they are forever.

There is still a problem here. The tree they were not to eat from only gave them a sense of right and wrong, not an overwhelming desire, that they could not resist, to do wrong. Their god never mentioned anything before hand about, "If you eat from this tree, I will punish you both unfairly, so that the gullible woman, who I made gullible in the first place, would receive the worst punishment for being gullible enough to listen to the snake. I will curse every human after you so that they will all die and they will all be born with an irresistible desire to do evil." Clearly their god did not let them "read the fine print on the contract" so he is equally as corrupt as Adam and Eve became, which he forced them to become.

What happened was El became upset because the humans in the story learned things that only El and the other gods were supposed to know, so he forced Adam and Eve to become corrupted because they "knew too much".

They knew what God said, and they knew the consequences. The punishments could have been the result of the blaming game they played afterward, and or their attempt to hide themselves from God. Adam didn't just blame the woman, he also blamed God as well.

Another way of looking at it could be, those punishments were actually God's mercy on them. If God really did mean they would fall down dead after they ate of this tree, the punishments He gave them instead was His mercy on them. For instance if we had a contract, and you broke that contract, I'm free to hold you accountable on that thing. Yet I don't have to, and I could be lenient in how I take action against you. Eve received the promise that her seed would crush the serpent's head, giving her (and all of mankind if you believe this is a reference to Jesus) redeemption. So the punishments could have actually been God's leniency.

So cursing all of humanity was mercy? If Adam and Eve just fell over dead, that would have been mercy. Instead, their god holds all humans accountable for their actions. Because of them, war, disease, death, natural disasters, and every other bad thing that happens are forced upon all humans, not just Adam and Eve. Normally, justice is when people who commit a crime pay for their own crimes and face the consequences. Injustice is when people innocent of the crime are also punished for it. El takes it a whole step further and forces all humans to be corrupt, against their will, because of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

God cursed all humanity because..he loves us. lol.

June 13, 2013

Before hand, they were free to eat of this tree, as God stated they could freely eat of any tree in the garden except the one of the knowledge of good and evil. So why does God not want them to eat of this tree now? Well, here's my opinion on it. Whatever state Adam and Eve were in, once they eat of the Tree of Life, they would remain in that state forever. Now with them being corrupt, God didn't want them to eat of the Tree of Life to remain corrupt forever. If they did, they could never be in God's presence again. So those are my thoughts based on what we have in the story. They could have certainly eat from the Tree of Life before the incident, but God's words indicate they never ate from this tree before. The only reason for not wanting them to eat and live forever now, is because they would remain as they are forever.

There is still a problem here. The tree they were not to eat from only gave them a sense of right and wrong, not an overwhelming desire, that they could not resist, to do wrong. Their god never mentioned anything before hand about, "If you eat from this tree, I will punish you both unfairly, so that the gullible woman, who I made gullible in the first place, would receive the worst punishment for being gullible enough to listen to the snake. I will curse every human after you so that they will all die and they will all be born with an irresistible desire to do evil." Clearly their god did not let them "read the fine print on the contract" so he is equally as corrupt as Adam and Eve became, which he forced them to become.

What happened was El became upset because the humans in the story learned things that only El and the other gods were supposed to know, so he forced Adam and Eve to become corrupted because they "knew too much".

They knew what God said, and they knew the consequences. The punishments could have been the result of the blaming game they played afterward, and or their attempt to hide themselves from God. Adam didn't just blame the woman, he also blamed God as well.

Another way of looking at it could be, those punishments were actually God's mercy on them. If God really did mean they would fall down dead after they ate of this tree, the punishments He gave them instead was His mercy on them. For instance if we had a contract, and you broke that contract, I'm free to hold you accountable on that thing. Yet I don't have to, and I could be lenient in how I take action against you. Eve received the promise that her seed would crush the serpent's head, giving her (and all of mankind if you believe this is a reference to Jesus) redeemption. So the punishments could have actually been God's leniency.

They "heard" what god said but because he had deprived them of the knowledge of good and evil it was like god was talking to developmentally delayed individuals. He set them up to fail.

June 13, 2013

"Has anyone mentioned yet that a loving parent doesnt leave dangerous items around to tempt their children? "Now Johnny, dont play with that loaded .357 that I am leaving right here in plain sight on the coffee table... for if you mess with it you shall surely die...ok Johnny, I'm leaving the room now...remember don't play with the .357...right there...wink wink."

Such a good analogy cant believe I didn't think about that earlier. Storing that one in the ole memory banks =D.

June 13, 2013

Yeah, the Bible is a true account. Right. A body of water on earth was divided by god. The water below is the earth's oceans. Then there is the water above. In between are the heavens a/k/a the

firmament. The firmament of course includes heaven and the stars. So above the stars and heaven is this

huge body of water from earth. And that's where rain comes from. From light years away.

Geneses,Ch.1. But wait minute! Science says the earth is a sphere? And if so, then the

heavens, stars and the water beyond the stars must also be arranged in a spherical shape in order for

Geneses to be true. And how could there be enough water from earth to be a canopy over all of the

stars? And how could gravity from the earth cause water beyond the stars to fall as rain on earth?

So rain cannot come from beyond the stars. Then what is that water beyond the stars for?

I got it: Revelations says that in the end the stars will fall to the earth. So science has it wrong.

The stars are not light years away, but well within the gravitational pull of the earth. And stars are

very small. Small enough so they can all fall to earth.

Oh well. You just can't trust science. We must look to the Bible for reality. bill

Bible history is accurate even though no one wrote a word about Jesus in his lifetime and Jesus never

wrote a word. No historians covered Jesus' life until decades after his death. So the only historical

record of his life is in the Gospels which are inconsistent with each other and very sketchy. I guess

god wanted there to be no clear and indisputable proof of his son's life. Otherwise, Jesus would have

appeared after his resurrection for all people to see as he will upon his second coming. So god had to want people to have viscous and violent disputes and wars about who his son was and what his purpose

was for thousands of years. That way there will be a lot of people who will go to hell and make it more interesting for god. bill

The pastor looks nervously around and says, "Uhhhh, well, I know there are inconsistencies between the bible and reality...but uhh... you must have faith! Stop thinking! Rational thought comes from the Satan, the great deceiver...."

Adam Gets My Eve

Recommended Posts

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

JamesG

crazyguy123

Fernweh

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ralet

Link to comment

Share on other sites

emshi21

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RipVanWinkle

Link to comment

Share on other sites

◊ crazyguy123 ◊

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JamesG

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heavenese

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JamesG

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JamesG

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RachelSkates

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heavenese

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JamesG

Link to comment

Share on other sites

◊ crazyguy123 ◊

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Fernweh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JamesG