Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"God told Eve about her seed crushing the head of the serpent. Christions see that as a reference to

Jesus."

 

What a remarkable prophesy! So specific. We can narrow it down to one out of about 10 billion people.

Could there be any doubt that Eve's seed crushing the serpent's head was referring to Jesus?

No one can deny this exact prophesy. bill

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So I was re-reading the story of adam and eve for some artistic inspiration. I was reminded of an epiphany that I had completely forgotten about.   When adam and eve were created that had no knowled

Heavenese, I'll admit I haven't read all of your responses in this thread. To be honest I have a hard time reading long posts by believers. Just skimming through your posts I can see that you are tryi

Biblegod isn't 100% good all the time. He even says this. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."  Is 45:7   Thus doeth the Lord of th

 

 

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.laugh.png   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.

It doesn't need updating? So everything in it  like stoning girls to death that aren't virgins and girls marrying her rapistis still relevant? How about Polyamory? It seemed ok back then. How do we choose what is just culture/time related and what is really the law we have to obey? What about all the questions that just apply to this time: Is watching porn a sin?Is artificial insemination "playing god" ? Is altering Dna-Strings ok? What about organ donation, blood transformation, abortion and euthanasia?

My point is, you say god care so much that he wrote the bible in terms they could understand (water above the firmament,...) and contains topics that are relevant to their culture/age, yet he doesnt care if we understand the bible or get the information we need. If he cared so much that they understand, why doesn't he care if we understand?

I don't need a "how to treat my slave", I dont need a creations story that is written for the people in bronze age.

 

Dont you see that the bible is only written in the way bronze age men think, because it is written by and for bronze age men?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

K.. can't take the abuse of history anymore...

 

"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."

 

What?  but but but... the Romans DID occupy Israel, Palestine (where Israel is today - though originally palestine/judea was much larger - 2/3rds having been annexed by the Babylonians and never reclaimed  ie: the lost tribes) has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including the Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Palestine/Judea/etc... was a territory held by almost every civilization around them at one time or another.

 

^^^ Grade 9 history...

 

There was no Exodus... there is NO evidence for it.. none, nada, zip. Queen Hatshepsut didn't ride her chariot through the Red Sea (you'd think that would make some news at the time, wouldn't you? - She was controversial enough (and far too smart to chase a rabble of slaves across the Egyptian desert) - Hatshepsut had one daughter named Neferure and she only married once to Thutmose II. - her brother) Thutmose III was Pharoah after her death (Thutmose II son). Interestingly 'mose' means either 'child' or 'son of'.. so Thutmoses means 'Son of Thoth' The word 'Moses' would mean just child or 'son of ______'.. it is not a proper name.. IF Hatshepsut had adopted Moses his name would have been Either Hatshepmoses (unlikely), or Thutmoses III (maybe IV) after her brother/husband. (or MAYBE Senunmut II  hahaha.. sorry a little Historian humor there) Egyptian inheritance was compicated and only a first wife or major wife could have royal offspring.. the BLOODLINE was all important because the Egyptians believed their Pharoahs were decended from the gods and had divine blood. This explains why they married their siblings. Most siblings were half-siblings though as Pharoah usually had more than one royal wife - though only one queen.

 

There is no evidence of famine or disaster during her rule. Her other name was Maatkare.. Ma'at mean truth/holiness/beauty, Ka is sort of 'soul' or essence - their eternal self, and Re is one of the words to express aspects of Horus, or the sun/gold/infinity.. so you could say it translates as "The divine/beautiful lady with the infinite glory/divinity of Horus (sun)" (set herself up as a Goddess - common in Pharoahs)  Hatshepsut means "Foremost of the noble ladies". (effectively - Queen)

 

"Hatshepsut, also known as Maatkare, was an 18th Dynasty pharaoh of Ancient Egypt. She ruled longer than any other woman we know of who was an indigenous Egyptian.

 

Hatshepsut died at about age 50, according to a stela at Armant. That date has been resolved to January 16, 1458 BCE by some."

 

"A mummy in 2007 was identified as the mummy of Hatshepsut. Assuming that identification is correct, we know more about likely causes of her death. The mummy shows signs of arthritis, many dental cavities and root inflammation and pockets, diabetes, and metastized bone cancer (the original site cannot be identified; it may have been in soft tissue like the lungs or breast). She was also obese. Some other signs show the likelihood of a skin disease. It is likely that the cancer killed her, though an abscessed tooth is another theory."

 

source:  http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hatshepsut/

 

Was the Exodus Real?

Although there can be a chronology within the framework of a fictional story or myth, dating the events is generally impossible. To have an historical date, normally, an event must be real; therefore the question must be asked as to whether or not the Exodus actually happened. Some believe the Exodus never took place because there is no physical or literary proof beyond the Bible. Others say all the proof that is needed is in the Bible. While there will always be skeptics, most assume there was some basis in historical/archaeological fact.

 

The main problem with dating the Exodus is that archaeological evidence and Biblical references do not line up.

16th, 15th Century Dating Problems

16th and 15th century dates

  • make the period of the Judges too long (300-400 years long),
  • involve extensive interaction with kingdoms which only came into existence later, and
  • make no mention of the heavy local influence the Egyptians had in the area of Syria and Palestine.

16th, 15th Century Support

However, some Biblical evidence supports the 15th century date, and the expulsion of the Hyksos favors the earlier date. The expulsion of the Hyksos evidence is important because it is the only historically recorded collective exodus from Egypt of people from Asia until the first millennium B.C.

Advantages of the 13th Century Date

The 13th century date solves the problems of the earlier ones (the period of the Judges would not be too long, there is archaeological evidence of the kingdoms the Hebrews had extensive contact with, and the Egyptians were no longer a major force in the area) and is the date accepted by more archaeologists and historians than the others. With the 13th century dating of the Exodus, settlement of Canaan by the Israelites occurs in the 12th century B.C. (this is doubtful as the correlation of Canaanite and Hebrew religion ties them together in origin from way back)

Source: 

 

"The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.[5] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention.

 

- No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.[20] Some scholars have rationalised these numbers into smaller figures, for example reading the Hebrew as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, but all such solutions raise more problems than they solve.[21] The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the improbability of the Exodus story originates because it was written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel.[3] Thus it seems probable that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but a gematria (a code in which numbers represent letters or words) for bnei yisra'el kol rosh, "the children of Israel, every individual;"[22] while the number 600,000 symbolises the total destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to see the Promised Land.[23]

 

Archaeology [edit]

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.[24] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[25] There is archeological evidence of the Caananite Hyksos people moving into and out of northern Egypt, though the relation of their dates to the biblical account is debated by scholars."

 

source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

 

 

Serpents: Let's get this straight..k?  (excerpts only - the entire article is fascinating)

 

Fertility and rebirth

Historically, serpents and snakes represent fertility or a creative life force. As snakes shed their skin through sloughing, they are symbols of rebirth, transformation, immortality, and healing.[6]The ouroboros is a symbol of eternity and continual renewal of life.

In the Abrahamic religions, the serpent represents sexual desire.[7] According to the Rabbinical tradition, in the Garden of Eden, the serpent represents sexual passion.[8] In Hinduism, Kundalini is a coiled serpent, the residual power of pure desire.[9]

Guardianship

 

Serpents are represented as potent guardians of temples and other sacred spaces. This connection may be grounded in the observation that when threatened, some snakes (such as rattlesnakes or cobras) frequently hold and defend their ground, first resorting to threatening display and then fighting, rather than retreat. Thus, they are natural guardians of treasures or sacred sites which cannot easily be moved out of harm's way.

 

At Angkor in Cambodia, numerous stone sculptures present hooded multi-headed nāgas as guardians of temples or other premises. A favorite motif of Angkorean sculptors from approximately the 12th century CE onward was that of the Buddha, sitting in the position of meditation, his weight supported by the coils of a multi-headed naga that also uses its flared hood to shield him from above. This motif recalls the story of the Buddha and the serpent king Mucalinda: as the Buddha sat beneath a tree engrossed in meditation, Mucalinda came up from the roots of the tree to shield the Buddha from a tempest that was just beginning to arise.

 

The Gadsden flag of the American Revolution depicts a rattlesnake coiled up and poised to strike. Below the image of the snake is the legend, "Don't tread on me." The snake symbolized the dangerousness of colonists willing to fight for their rights and homeland. The motif is repeated in the First Navy Jack of the US Navy.

Poison and medicine

Serpents are connected with poison and medicine. The snake's venom is associated with the chemicals of plants and fungi[10][11][12] that have the power to either heal, poison or provide expanded consciousness (and even the elixir of life and immortality) through divine intoxication. Because of its herbal knowledge and entheogenic association the snake was often considered one of the wisest animals, being (close to the) divine. Its divine aspect combined with its habitat in the earth between the roots of plants made it an animal with chthonic properties connected to the afterlife and immortality. Asclepius, the God of medicine and healing, carried a staff with one serpent wrapped around it, which has become the symbol of modern medicine.

 

Cosmic serpents

The serpent, when forming a ring with its tail in its mouth, is a clear and widespread symbol of the "All-in-All", the totality of existence, infinity and the cyclic nature of the cosmos. The most well known version of this is the Aegypto-Greek Ourobouros. It is believed to have been inspired by the Milky Way, as some ancient texts refer to a serpent of light residing in the heavens. The Ancient Egyptians associated it with Wadjet, one of their oldest deities as well as another aspect, Hathor. In Norse mythology the World Serpent (or Midgard serpent) known as Jörmungandr encircled the world in the ocean's abyss biting its own tail.

 

The oldest known representation of two snakes entwined around a rod is that of the Sumerian fertility god Ningizzida. (and the creatrix of the human race) Ningizzida was sometimes depicted as a serpent with a human head, eventually becoming a god of healing and magic. It is the companion of Dumuzi (Tammuz) with whom it stood at the gate of heaven. In the Louvre, there is a famous green steatite vase carved for King Gudea of Lagash (dated variously 22002025 BCE) with an inscription dedicated to Ningizzida. Ningizzida was the ancestor of Gilgamesh, who according to the epic dived to the bottom of the waters to retrieve the plant of life. But while he rested from his labor, a serpent came and ate the plant. The snake became immortal, and Gilgamesh was destined to die.

 

Snake cults were well established in Canaanite religion in the Bronze Age, for archaeologists have uncovered serpent cult objects in Bronze Age strata at several pre-Israelite cities in Canaan: two at Megiddo,[21] one at Gezer,[22] one in the sanctum sanctorum of the Area H temple at Hazor,[23] and two at Shechem.[24]

In the surrounding region, serpent cult objects figured in other cultures. A late Bronze Age Hittite shrine in northern Syria contained a bronze statue of a god holding a serpent in one hand and a staff in the other.[25] In 6th-century Babylon, a pair of bronze serpents flanked each of the four doorways of the temple of Esagila.[26] At the Babylonian New Year's festival, the priest was to commission from a woodworker, a metalworker and a goldsmith two images one of which "shall hold in its left hand a snake of cedar, raising its right [hand] to the god Nabu".[27] At the tell of Tepe Gawra, at least seventeen Early Bronze Age Assyrian bronze serpents were recovered.[28]

 

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28symbolism%29

 

Once you STUDY actual history and world mythology it all starts to make sense... there's SO much more to these myths. To take them literally is, frankly, uninformed. (I'm being generous)

 

So.. Theology is not my area of expertise.. many here have much more knowledge of that area.. but history (especially) and mythology are mine, and it really bugs me when people try to use history and archaeology to support things when they don't even have their history right. You want to have faith in an old collection of texts? Go for it.. but if you try to assert that history (ie: facts - in physical reality) backs up your book of myths and bad political propaganda I will slap you down every time. It does not.. and until history and archaeology finds more evidence that's the way it is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow ravenstar that was impressive. I keep going back through all of that there is a lot to take in ;) thanks a bunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

Other people put their spin on God's laws...but you dont?

 

It is most unfortunate that Christians must concoct implausible and ridiculous stories to defend their imaginary friend's honor in the  bible. But if they dont defend their God (who apparently can't defend himself) then they themselves look like they are loving and worshiping a psychopath. Must make the psychopath look good at all costs. I personally am done worshiping psychopaths. But go ahead and continue if you like.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

Not just stoning of children...the infallible word of our loving God, sanctioned stoning of childen. Better sweep that topic under the rug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavenese: Sometimes retreat is the best strategy. I'll say the discussion must put emotion aside, like compassion, pity, empathy, sympathy and all the other positive emotions. bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was something I got into with Thumbalina about...she kept insisting that Eve knew what she was doing was wrong and seemed completely unable to compute the fact that this was totally and utterly impossible according to "God's Word" itself.

 

Eve had absolutely no reason to mistrust the serpent or disbelieve him. She was utterly incapable of disobedience since she and adam didn't even know what disobedience was. God made a request of her and Adam not to eat from the tree, which they both complied with fully until their friend the snake told them something else. God never even said "I will be angry with you and throw you out of the garden if you eat from this tree." He just said they would die. 

 

The onus of this story falls completely and wholly on God's shoulders. The Almighty either deliberately set them up or was just really unbelievably stupid. The result was that God refuses (as usual) to take responsibility for His actions and takes His temper out on innocent beings. 

 

Christians do some mighty impressive twisting in their apologetics on this or just plain and simple sail down De Nial with fingers in their ears going "La la la la." 

 

As for myself...I know what I read. I know why I don't follow this stupid religion or it's stupid and sadistic God anymore. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since it didn't really happen (the Adam and Eve story) it is an exercise in futility to argue

about whose fault it was. But I'm going to do it anyway. I believe God set A&E up from the beginning.

 

Otherwise, why would there have been a tree of knowledge in the Garden in the first place? There's only

one possible reason and that was to test A & E. But god already knew what would happen when he allowed

the tree to grow. So, god set them up to fail and then condemned them to die, as well as the billions of

their progeny. Then god increased the penalty to eternity in hell for all but a few "chosen".

What a Guy! bill

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ravenstar that was another 5 star history post.  Bravo!

 

 

@Heavenease 

You are not being honest with yourself.  You say you see what science says.  You say you accept the history.  But then you say you think there is more to it.  That is how you choose to reject what science says and reject the history.  It boils down to this.  God would have to be a liar for the Bible to be true.  It's not enough that the claims of the Bible are impossible.  But if God had suddenly showed up and did the impossible using divine power then God also must have done another miracle as well by altering all the evidence to indicate that the Bible miracles didn't happen.

 

Do you get that?  You would have God make DNA lie to us.  It tells a very clear and detailed story about how life all evolved and diversified from common ancestors.  If that didn't happen then God created that story simply to deceive us on the day that we figured out how to read it.  The ice cores and sediment cores also tell a detailed story that allows us to track weather and atmospheric condition for hundreds of thousands of years.  The story of the cores is consistent with the story from the DNA.  If the Bible is true then God used a miracle to lie to us in the cores - at every single square inch of the surface of Earth.  Nature is filled with data where evidence all tells a constant story that conflicts with the Bible.  Everywhere we look we see conflict with the Bible.  Did God create all of that evidence to fool us into not believing the Bible?  And before you blame Satan remember that most people will reject the gospel message because of the evidence against it.  So if Satan did all of this without God's permission then Satan is more powerful than God.

 

The Bible is wrong.  It's the simple explanation.  The Bible was written by men.  It's the opinion of men.  It's no better than the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the writings of the Priest of Zeus nor any other Iron Age religious text.  The Bible was written to give power to a few scam artists.  That is what Christianity does.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

I'm back again.  I don't know what more to say here.  Of course I said in my last post that we've all discussed this thing about as far as it can be for the moment.  I'm amazed you still don't see my points.  You're explanation about poison labels and such doesn't explain anything at all.  It makes absolutely no sense for God to tell Adam and Eve they will die if they it fruit of that tree, if they were already going to die anyway.  It's clear from the text with Eve, they didn't want to eat of the fruit because they would die, when the snake asked her about it.  Yet does that make sense, if they knew they would die anyway?  Not wanting to die, yet knowing they will die?  If that doesn't convince you, then I would have to say your biases are preventing you from seeing it this way.

 

Plus another thing, Adam and Eve could eat from the Tree of Life before they disobeyed God. (As God said they could freely eat of the trees in the Garden, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.)  That is absolutely clear.  If the effects from eating this tree is living forever, even if Adam and Eve were created mortal originally, God fully intended for them to be immortal in any case.  Adam living for a thousand years proves Adam wasn't like us in terms of physical nature.  Put all this together, without mentioning the things of the NT, God fully intended for Adam to live forever.  Whether He created him that way in the beginning (which is what I believe from the text), or from eating of the Tree of Life sealing the deal.

 

 

 

@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.

 

 

You said He could have had Adam and Eve redeem themselves through some sort of ritual?  God must be just.  If God overlook crime because Adam and Eve did something for Him, that would be like a judge accepting a bribe.  No, God told them they would die if they ate from the fruit, and He is bound to carry out the penalty.  However, God enjoys giving mercy more so than handing out justice.  The only thing that could redeem Adam and Eve, is someone else taking both their crime and penalty.  If judges on earth had the power (I mean the power a.k.a supernatural strength) to lay someone's crimes on another person who was willing to receive it, they could legally let the original offender go, and punish the one who receive the crime.  So that was the only thing that could redeem Adam and Eve.  This promise could only come through their children, as the blood of animals wasn't enough to redeem them.

 

 

I've explained in my past posts concerning our suffering and what God has done about it.  It's theoretical stuff for most obviously, because there's no one here can say they seen an outright miracle like the ones mentioned in the NT.  So this is what I'm looking into.

 

 

 

 

@ 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

 

 

 

God implied Cain didn't do well.  Remember this was referring to the offering both he and his brother Abel offered to the Lord.  We have no mention of Adam and Eve, prior to their disobedience, about offering anything to God.  What Abel offered God was the firstborn of his flock, and this was accepted by God.  So you can see here the setup, especially when looking at God's words to Cain, that you can only be redeemed by blood.  So what did Cain have to do to "do well", and not have sin lie at his door?  If we are to say to follow Abel's example, that means offering a blood sacrifice.  Yet animal sacrifice wasn't enough to cover sin.  That was why God promised Eve an appointed seed.  This seed could only come through her children.  God couldn't make another man from the ground, because that man would share no connection with Adam and Eve. (Hence why animal sacrifice wasn't enough)  They have to be related.  So there was no other way around this.  If God redeemed Adam and Eve any other way, He would have lied about them dying from eating the fruit.

 

 

Since we come from Adam and Eve, according to the story, we are in a way apart of them.  Of course we get our DNA from our parents, so we are like a very special and unique copy of both of them.  So technically, we could die in Adam and Eve's place, with God not having to lie about the punishment they would receive.  Since we are apart of them, us taking their punishment would be like them receiving it.  However of course, we inherited Adam's nature.  So even if we took Adam's crime and punishment, they would receive our crime and punishment.  So that is why Jesus came.  He didn't inherit Adam's nature, and at the same time He was related to us.  The perfect sacrifice.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I'm not preaching anything here, but presenting a clearer picture of what Genesis is saying.  If we are to even ask questions about what Genesis is saying, that means you have to look at what the text is saying and view from all angle points.  I haven't distorted or brought in completely new thoughts into the story.  I've argued from the text.  Concerning the scientific angle, I brought up my own thoughts here.  I'm not trying to trick anyone into believing what I said, I've been very up front about where I'm coming from and my own thoughts.  The truth is, we only know about 4% of what the universe is made up of.  The other 96% is still being studied on.  We know that Dark Matter can bend light, or else we wouldn't have known it was out there.  If it can bend it, what else could it do?  Could it have a magnifying effect to light?  And what about Dark Energy?  What are it's properties?  Is it more than just a repelling force?  These are questions I want to find out an answer for myself.  I'm also interested in the concept of multiple universes and string theory.  So I'm not preaching anything here, yet as it comes to Genesis and the things it implies, I think I've provided enough answers here to suggest what I'm saying.  That it's reasonable to see it the way I presented it.  Of course we haven't gotten into the hebrew language of it all.

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

I'll respond to this last post here.  Adam and Eve certainly had a sense or consciousness, and it was on trusting God.  However, God made them free to do their own thing, and stop trusting Him.  He basically told them the results of that choice was death.  We make the mistake and say because Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, it wasn't really their fault for disobeying God.  However they knew what they were doing.  No they weren't developmentally impaired or without any knowledge at all.  It wouldn't make sense for God to give them a command, if they weren't capable of keeping it or better yet, prone to not keeping it.  Don't let the name of the tree rob you of that understanding.  Adam and Eve weren't clueless.

 

As for God having the tree in the Garden, the tree was an exercise of their free will.  It wasn't necessarily the tree itself that was bad, it was the command not to eat from it.  Remember, Adam's knowledge at the time was trusting God.  God gave Adam a command that would allow him to excercise his free will to go his own way or to continue to trust Him.  You can't equate the tree being in the Garden, with a loaded gun being in reach of a child.  Again, Adam and Eve weren't clueless.  They had knowledge.  They understood what God said.  If I told little Johnny something, he may or may not understand what I'm saying.  So a better comparison would be telling adult Johnny "Don't touch my gun". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for God having the tree in the Garden, the tree was an exercise of their free will.  It wasn't necessarily the tree itself that was bad, it was the command not to eat from it.  Remember, Adam's knowledge at the time was trusting God.  God gave Adam a command that would allow him to excercise his free will to go his own way or to continue to trust Him.  You can't equate the tree being in the Garden, with a loaded gun being in reach of a child.  Again, Adam and Eve weren't clueless.  They had knowledge.  They understood what God said.  If I told little Johnny something, he may or may not understand what I'm saying.  So a better comparison would be telling adult Johnny "Don't touch my gun". 

 

It is more like lying a piece of candy in front of children and saying that they shouldn't eat it or they will get stomachache. And after they ate it they didnt only get stomachache but also kicked out of the house forever, good parenting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is more like lying a piece of candy in front of children and saying that they shouldn't eat it or they will get stomachache. And after they ate it they didnt only get stomachache but also kicked out of the house forever, good parenting.

 

 

 

 

No, again Adam and Eve weren't children.  It's also important to note, trusting someone doesn't really involve knowing good and evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is more like lying a piece of candy in front of children and saying that they shouldn't eat it or they will get stomachache. And after they ate it they didnt only get stomachache but also kicked out of the house forever, good parenting.

 

 

 

 

No, again Adam and Eve weren't children.  It's also important to note, trusting someone doesn't really involve knowing good and evil.

 

What distinguishes children from adult?- A big part is life experience. As a child you learn that your decisions have consequences. You might try to touch fire,eat sand or do something your parents forbid and experienced the consequences.As a kid/teen you had the knowledge that you should do some things,you tried them anyway and got brunt/punished and learned from that. There is a difference between "theoretical knowledge" and life experience. Adam and Eve didn't have that chance to collect this kind of "trial and error"-experience, so in my eyes they werent "adults".

And what I wanted to say with the metaphor was that the punishment didn't fit the crime and it wasn't what god warned them about. He said "or you will die" and not "or you will be separated from me, live a life full of labor and pain and what you do affects not only you but the whole humankind".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What distinguishes children from adult?- A big part is life experience. As a child you learn that your decisions have consequences. You might try to touch fire,eat sand or do something your parents forbid and experienced the consequences.As a kid/teen you had the knowledge that you should do some things,you tried them anyway and got brunt/punished and learned from that. There is a difference between "theoretical knowledge" and life experience. Adam and Eve didn't have that chance to collect this kind of "trial and error"-experience, so in my eyes they werent "adults".

And what I wanted to say with the metaphor was that the punishment didn't fit the crime and it wasn't what god warned them about. He said "or you will die" and not "or you will be separated from me, live a life full of labor and pain and what you do affects not only you but the whole humankind".

 

 

 

We know that experience isn't always the best teacher, and it's certainly not the only teacher.  Another teacher for kids is their parent's provision.  This is another kind of experience in fact, because based on how well the parent provided for this child, it gives them ample reason why to trust them.  So what did God give Adam and Eve?  He gave them dominion over the entire earth, gave them food, and conversated with them daily perhaps. (A lot of Christians point out how God visited Adam and Eve in the cool of the day)  Seeing God's goodness and provision, that was ample reason to trust God.  We don't have a timetable for when the snake came in to play, it could have been years after creation for all we know.  The point being Adam and Eve had reason to trust God.  (Again trust having nothing to do with knowing good and evil)

 

God said they would die the day they ate of the tree.  I've talked on what this implies in past posts.  This is what happened ultimately.  Again interesting to note, God never said they wouldn't also gain knowledge of good and evil if they ate from the fruit.  So it wasn't like God lied by saying they wouldn't gain that knowledge.  All He said was they would surely die.  How does that relate to Adam's offspring?  Simply put we are copies of Adam, we were apart of his body.  Technically, that death involved us to, being apart of Adam's body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is more like lying a piece of candy in front of children and saying that they shouldn't eat it or they will get stomachache. And after they ate it they didnt only get stomachache but also kicked out of the house forever, good parenting.

 

 

 

 

No, again Adam and Eve weren't children.  It's also important to note, trusting someone doesn't really involve knowing good and evil.

 

 

You are acting like the pope of your own personal religion.  The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were not children.  The Bible also doesn't say that Adam and Eve lived 18 years before they fell.  The Bible also doesn't say that Jesus wasn't a raptor.  Are we allowed to read anything we want into the text?  The fairy tale does not mention that any significant time passed before the Fall.  Genesis 1 counts time by days.  Genesis 2 implies that the temptation was in the garden from the very beginning.  The Bible isn't a very well written book.  That is why there is so much division in the religions derived from the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What distinguishes children from adult?- A big part is life experience. As a child you learn that your decisions have consequences. You might try to touch fire,eat sand or do something your parents forbid and experienced the consequences.As a kid/teen you had the knowledge that you should do some things,you tried them anyway and got brunt/punished and learned from that. There is a difference between "theoretical knowledge" and life experience. Adam and Eve didn't have that chance to collect this kind of "trial and error"-experience, so in my eyes they werent "adults".

And what I wanted to say with the metaphor was that the punishment didn't fit the crime and it wasn't what god warned them about. He said "or you will die" and not "or you will be separated from me, live a life full of labor and pain and what you do affects not only you but the whole humankind".

 

 

 

We know that experience isn't always the best teacher, and it's certainly not the only teacher.  Another teacher for kids is their parent's provision.  This is another kind of experience in fact, because based on how well the parent provided for this child, it gives them ample reason why to trust them.  So what did God give Adam and Eve?  He gave them dominion over the entire earth, gave them food, and conversated with them daily perhaps. (A lot of Christians point out how God visited Adam and Eve in the cool of the day)  Seeing God's goodness and provision, that was ample reason to trust God.  We don't have a timetable for when the snake came in to play, it could have been years after creation for all we know.  The point being Adam and Eve had reason to trust God.  (Again trust having nothing to do with knowing good and evil)

 

God said they would die the day they ate of the tree.  I've talked on what this implies in past posts.  This is what happened ultimately.  Again interesting to note, God never said they wouldn't also gain knowledge of good and evil if they ate from the fruit.  So it wasn't like God lied by saying they wouldn't gain that knowledge.  All He said was they would surely die.  How does that relate to Adam's offspring?  Simply put we are copies of Adam, we were apart of his body.  Technically, that death involved us to, being apart of Adam's body.

 

I am not saying that God was lying, but he didn't tell the full truth. Death is not the only punishment here. It is being kicked out of Eden and all suffering that came with it. Having a limited time in a eden or this life we are living right now with diseases,war and a separation from god presence is not the same. Your argument that we are "copies from Adam" doesn't answer whether they knew if their decision only affects them or others.

 

I didn't say experience is the only and smartest way to learn, but it is a part of growing up. As you child you do trust your parents fully like adam and eve trusted god. your parents say something is bad for you and you believe them. but you are also curious and try things what you shouldn't. the consequence is that you have to suffer for a certain time. that punishment is  enough. you parents might punish you for disobedience so that you learn that you should break their rules, but what kind of parents would punish their kids by kicking them out and leaving them to themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis is not the oldest version of the Garden of Eden story.

 

We can see a glimpse of an older version of the story in Ezekiel 28:

 

 


 

 

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

Adam was origoinally the King of Tyrus.  Eve was the Queen of Tyrus.  That means that the story wasn't originally intended as "incest populates the world".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What distinguishes children from adult?- A big part is life experience. As a child you learn that your decisions have consequences. You might try to touch fire,eat sand or do something your parents forbid and experienced the consequences.As a kid/teen you had the knowledge that you should do some things,you tried them anyway and got brunt/punished and learned from that. There is a difference between "theoretical knowledge" and life experience. Adam and Eve didn't have that chance to collect this kind of "trial and error"-experience, so in my eyes they werent "adults".

And what I wanted to say with the metaphor was that the punishment didn't fit the crime and it wasn't what god warned them about. He said "or you will die" and not "or you will be separated from me, live a life full of labor and pain and what you do affects not only you but the whole humankind".

 

 

 

We know that experience isn't always the best teacher, and it's certainly not the only teacher.  Another teacher for kids is their parent's provision.  This is another kind of experience in fact, because based on how well the parent provided for this child, it gives them ample reason why to trust them.  So what did God give Adam and Eve?  He gave them dominion over the entire earth, gave them food, and conversated with them daily perhaps. (A lot of Christians point out how God visited Adam and Eve in the cool of the day)  Seeing God's goodness and provision, that was ample reason to trust God.  We don't have a timetable for when the snake came in to play, it could have been years after creation for all we know.  The point being Adam and Eve had reason to trust God.  (Again trust having nothing to do with knowing good and evil)

 

God said they would die the day they ate of the tree.  I've talked on what this implies in past posts.  This is what happened ultimately.  Again interesting to note, God never said they wouldn't also gain knowledge of good and evil if they ate from the fruit.  So it wasn't like God lied by saying they wouldn't gain that knowledge.  All He said was they would surely die.  How does that relate to Adam's offspring?  Simply put we are copies of Adam, we were apart of his body.  Technically, that death involved us to, being apart of Adam's body.

 

I am not saying that God was lying, but he didn't tell the full truth. Death is not the only punishment here. It is being kicked out of Eden and all suffering that came with it. Having a limited time in a eden or this life we are living right now with diseases,war and a separation from god presence is not the same. Your argument that we are "copies from Adam" doesn't answer whether they knew if their decision only affects them or others.

 

I didn't say experience is the only and smartest way to learn, but it is a part of growing up. As you child you do trust your parents fully like adam and eve trusted god. your parents say something is bad for you and you believe them. but you are also curious and try things what you shouldn't. the consequence is that you have to suffer for a certain time. that punishment is  enough. you parents might punish you for disobedience so that you learn that you should break their rules, but what kind of parents would punish their kids by kicking them out and leaving them to themselves?

 

 

And what kind of parents would then force their grandchildren to live in an alley after kicking their kids out of the house?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back again.  I don't know what more to say here.  Of course I said in my last post that we've all discussed this thing about as far as it can be for the moment.  I'm amazed you still don't see my points.  You're explanation about poison labels and such doesn't explain anything at all.  It makes absolutely no sense for God to tell Adam and Eve they will die if they it fruit of that tree, if they were already going to die anyway.  It's clear from the text with Eve, they didn't want to eat of the fruit because they would die, when the snake asked her about it.  Yet does that make sense, if they knew they would die anyway?  Not wanting to die, yet knowing they will die?  If that doesn't convince you, then I would have to say your biases are preventing you from seeing it this way.

 

Plus another thing, Adam and Eve could eat from the Tree of Life before they disobeyed God. (As God said they could freely eat of the trees in the Garden, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.)  That is absolutely clear.  If the effects from eating this tree is living forever, even if Adam and Eve were created mortal originally, God fully intended for them to be immortal in any case.  Adam living for a thousand years proves Adam wasn't like us in terms of physical nature.  Put all this together, without mentioning the things of the NT, God fully intended for Adam to live forever.  Whether He created him that way in the beginning (which is what I believe from the text), or from eating of the Tree of Life sealing the deal.

 

 

It makes absolutely no sense for God to tell Adam and Eve they will die if they it fruit of that tree, if they were already going to die anyway

 

It makes perfect sense what are you missing here? You and I are both going to die right? if you answered yes then it makes sense to put a warning on things that kill us right? If you answered yes then it would make sense for god to tell adam and eve that this tree would kill them even if they were mortal right? I hope this makes sense to you.  I know your brain is working in overdrive trying to dispute all of these basic analogies that is why it might seem like we are not getting anywhere but I think we are. It is not easy to be confronted by these discussions as it can derail your sense of reality.

 

 

Again bringing up adams age does not prove anything. It just doesn't it proves that he "lived a long" time according to the bible but that is only if you don't accept it as an allegory and take it literal. You don't know what god's intentions were and to assume that he intended us to live forever is false. It clearly states that "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." If god wanted adam to live forever as a companion it was easy he only had to let him eat from the fruit of life. If god wanted to save the human race he could have just let adam eat from the fruit of life. If god loved adam he would have let him eat from the fruit of life. But we KNOW why god didn't want adam to live forever "The man has now become like one of us" If god does exist he doesn't care about you. You are just trash to him to be discarded when you have run out of use for him. You don't need to have billions of people suffer god didn't need to have to sacrifice his son to save all of humanity all he had to do was let Adam eat of the fruit of life its that simple. No need for death despair pain and suffering. but GOD CHOSE to let us all suffer because he did not want an equal or I should say they did not want an equal.

 

 

I would like to know your opinion on what god meant by saying US instead of ME?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I might want to add. You are probably not going to really convince us to your position on the matter as we all have been to your position I used the same words you are using now. I believed the same things. You would have to bring something new to the table to convince us that god is real. We are ex-CHRISTIANS we know these arguments we have argued them before ourselves. you probably didn't come here to convert us I am sure. I think you came here because you have your own questions about god. You probably have your own doubts about god. I am convinced you are on some shaky ground but you are afraid to admit this to yourself.

 

Lets change the subject there is no need for you to defend god adam and eve anymore. what doubts brought you here? what answers were you looking for?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

heavenese I think you have a budding interest in some of these scientific concepts but it is best not to use them until you understand them. I am not going to go around here and make claims based off of scientific concepts I don't understand. We have a pretty good understanding of how light interacts with matter and even dark matter for instance. If light were to be magnified as you claimed that would mean it is further away than what you think meaning the universe is older. In fact we are going to be so spread apart in the next 200 years that the red shift will not be observable from our point in the universe any longer. This doesn't mean that the age of the universe will get younger though from our observational point of view. It just means we will not be able to perceive the point in which our observable light coalesces. We wills still be able to see galaxies that are BILLIONS of light years away in fact there were some recent discoveries using telescopes this year finding some stars that wer e 13.2 BILLION light years away. The math is pretty sound on this to. If you take the time to learn how to do the math you can observer this yourself without us telling you about it. Ignorance is not knowledge and don't confuse faith for it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

I'm back again.  I don't know what more to say here.  Of course I said in my last post that we've all discussed this thing about as far as it can be for the moment.  I'm amazed you still don't see my points.  You're explanation about poison labels and such doesn't explain anything at all.  It makes absolutely no sense for God to tell Adam and Eve they will die if they it fruit of that tree, if they were already going to die anyway.  It's clear from the text with Eve, they didn't want to eat of the fruit because they would die, when the snake asked her about it.  Yet does that make sense, if they knew they would die anyway?  Not wanting to die, yet knowing they will die?  If that doesn't convince you, then I would have to say your biases are preventing you from seeing it this way.

 

Plus another thing, Adam and Eve could eat from the Tree of Life before they disobeyed God. (As God said they could freely eat of the trees in the Garden, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.)  That is absolutely clear.  If the effects from eating this tree is living forever, even if Adam and Eve were created mortal originally, God fully intended for them to be immortal in any case.  Adam living for a thousand years proves Adam wasn't like us in terms of physical nature.  Put all this together, without mentioning the things of the NT, God fully intended for Adam to live forever.  Whether He created him that way in the beginning (which is what I believe from the text), or from eating of the Tree of Life sealing the deal.

 

 

 

@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.

 

 

You said He could have had Adam and Eve redeem themselves through some sort of ritual?  God must be just.  If God overlook crime because Adam and Eve did something for Him, that would be like a judge accepting a bribe.  No, God told them they would die if they ate from the fruit, and He is bound to carry out the penalty.  However, God enjoys giving mercy more so than handing out justice.  The only thing that could redeem Adam and Eve, is someone else taking both their crime and penalty.  If judges on earth had the power (I mean the power a.k.a supernatural strength) to lay someone's crimes on another person who was willing to receive it, they could legally let the original offender go, and punish the one who receive the crime.  So that was the only thing that could redeem Adam and Eve.  This promise could only come through their children, as the blood of animals wasn't enough to redeem them.

 

 

I've explained in my past posts concerning our suffering and what God has done about it.  It's theoretical stuff for most obviously, because there's no one here can say they seen an outright miracle like the ones mentioned in the NT.  So this is what I'm looking into.

 

 

 

 

@ 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

 

 

 

God implied Cain didn't do well.  Remember this was referring to the offering both he and his brother Abel offered to the Lord.  We have no mention of Adam and Eve, prior to their disobedience, about offering anything to God.  What Abel offered God was the firstborn of his flock, and this was accepted by God.  So you can see here the setup, especially when looking at God's words to Cain, that you can only be redeemed by blood.  So what did Cain have to do to "do well", and not have sin lie at his door?  If we are to say to follow Abel's example, that means offering a blood sacrifice.  Yet animal sacrifice wasn't enough to cover sin.  That was why God promised Eve an appointed seed.  This seed could only come through her children.  God couldn't make another man from the ground, because that man would share no connection with Adam and Eve. (Hence why animal sacrifice wasn't enough)  They have to be related.  So there was no other way around this.  If God redeemed Adam and Eve any other way, He would have lied about them dying from eating the fruit.

 

 

Since we come from Adam and Eve, according to the story, we are in a way apart of them.  Of course we get our DNA from our parents, so we are like a very special and unique copy of both of them.  So technically, we could die in Adam and Eve's place, with God not having to lie about the punishment they would receive.  Since we are apart of them, us taking their punishment would be like them receiving it.  However of course, we inherited Adam's nature.  So even if we took Adam's crime and punishment, they would receive our crime and punishment.  So that is why Jesus came.  He didn't inherit Adam's nature, and at the same time He was related to us.  The perfect sacrifice.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I'm not preaching anything here, but presenting a clearer picture of what Genesis is saying.  If we are to even ask questions about what Genesis is saying, that means you have to look at what the text is saying and view from all angle points.  I haven't distorted or brought in completely new thoughts into the story.  I've argued from the text.  Concerning the scientific angle, I brought up my own thoughts here.  I'm not trying to trick anyone into believing what I said, I've been very up front about where I'm coming from and my own thoughts.  The truth is, we only know about 4% of what the universe is made up of.  The other 96% is still being studied on.  We know that Dark Matter can bend light, or else we wouldn't have known it was out there.  If it can bend it, what else could it do?  Could it have a magnifying effect to light?  And what about Dark Energy?  What are it's properties?  Is it more than just a repelling force?  These are questions I want to find out an answer for myself.  I'm also interested in the concept of multiple universes and string theory.  So I'm not preaching anything here, yet as it comes to Genesis and the things it implies, I think I've provided enough answers here to suggest what I'm saying.  That it's reasonable to see it the way I presented it.  Of course we haven't gotten into the hebrew language of it all.

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

I'll respond to this last post here.  Adam and Eve certainly had a sense or consciousness, and it was on trusting God.  However, God made them free to do their own thing, and stop trusting Him.  He basically told them the results of that choice was death.  We make the mistake and say because Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, it wasn't really their fault for disobeying God.  However they knew what they were doing.  No they weren't developmentally impaired or without any knowledge at all.  It wouldn't make sense for God to give them a command, if they weren't capable of keeping it or better yet, prone to not keeping it.  Don't let the name of the tree rob you of that understanding.  Adam and Eve weren't clueless.

 

As for God having the tree in the Garden, the tree was an exercise of their free will.  It wasn't necessarily the tree itself that was bad, it was the command not to eat from it.  Remember, Adam's knowledge at the time was trusting God.  God gave Adam a command that would allow him to excercise his free will to go his own way or to continue to trust Him.  You can't equate the tree being in the Garden, with a loaded gun being in reach of a child.  Again, Adam and Eve weren't clueless.  They had knowledge.  They understood what God said.  If I told little Johnny something, he may or may not understand what I'm saying.  So a better comparison would be telling adult Johnny "Don't touch my gun". 

 

 

So prior to having a knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve had a conscience, which is a knowledge of good and evil. :-) The tree must have been misnamed then. A better name would be the "Tree of the Rest of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

 

I think the story of Adam and Eve illustrates a point in Christianity that we should not seek knowledge and just do what our God (i.e. our pastor or congregation) wants us to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@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.

 

 

You said He could have had Adam and Eve redeem themselves through some sort of ritual?  God must be just.  If God overlook crime because Adam and Eve did something for Him, that would be like a judge accepting a bribe.  No, God told them they would die if they ate from the fruit, and He is bound to carry out the penalty.  However, God enjoys giving mercy more so than handing out justice.  The only thing that could redeem Adam and Eve, is someone else taking both their crime and penalty.  If judges on earth had the power (I mean the power a.k.a supernatural strength) to lay someone's crimes on another person who was willing to receive it, they could legally let the original offender go, and punish the one who receive the crime.  So that was the only thing that could redeem Adam and Eve.  This promise could only come through their children, as the blood of animals wasn't enough to redeem them.

 

 

I've explained in my past posts concerning our suffering and what God has done about it.  It's theoretical stuff for most obviously, because there's no one here can say they seen an outright miracle like the ones mentioned in the NT.  So this is what I'm looking into.

 

 

So if God must be just, then how is it justice for someone else to pay the penalty of Adam and Eve's crimes? That isn't justice. I don't know what you are getting at here with all of this justice and mercy nonsense. If your god was just and the penalty for Adam and Eve's disobedience was death, then they would have died and corruption and death would not have been passed onto their offspring. They would die and then God would create new people all over again, end of story. Besides, I fail to see how your God is merciful or just by allowing Adam and Eve to produce offspring KNOWING that their corruption would be passed on to their offspring, causing all humans to die and suffer. That is not mercy or justice, that is FORCING all people to pay the penalty of their ancestors. it is FORCING people to be born corrupt so that they absolutely CANNOT avoid sinning, dooming everyone to death and an eternity in Hell, which no one knew about until thousands of years after Adam and Eve lived and died. The only way to avoid this eternity in Hell is to BRIBE God by being a good little slave who does everything they are told.

 

Actually, my suggestion of Adam and Eve being redeemed through a ritual had nothing to do with bribes. Basically, their god could have given them a way to redeem themselves so that they could be seen as redeemed in his eyes, instead of forcing MANY generations to suffer and die before he could ever send a human version of himself to commit suicide and redeem them, which would be mercy, while still requiring them to die at the end of their life, which would be justice. Then justice and mercy could have been given all at once. By the way, if animal sacrifices weren't enough to redeem them, then why was animal sacrifice required to begin with? Was the whole purpose for your god to sadistically watch animals get sacrificed and burned? It sure seems that way because there is a passage in the Bible that says God likes the smell of burning flesh and he never seems to give a crap about animals. Their only purpose, apparently, is for humans to enjoy them.

 

Honestly, if you think that it is either merciful or just to force every single human after Adam and Eve, as well as every animal that has ever lived since they lived, to suffer and die for the actions of Adam and Eve, BEFORE their god could redeem them by going to Earth to kill himself and bring himself back to life, then I am afraid you've got some screwed up logic my friend. I certainly hope that the story of Adam and Eve is nothing but a myth because if it had all been true, that would mean that a monster created the Earth and it would mean that you willingly worship this monster and do everything he tells you out of fear and are forced to make up excuses so that he sounds nicer to you, in order for you to be able to keep thinking of him as something that is good, out of fear. It makes sense. If I still believed that the god you believe in was real, already knowing what a monster he is, I would probably need to do a logical tap dance and make up a massive list of excuses to deceive myself with so that he wouldn't seem so bad anymore.

 

I apologize if this sounded like a rant of frustration, I didn't intend for it to be one from the start, but it just greatly disturbs me that you are still trapped in a system of belief that requires you to make up excuses in order to make a monstrous god seem like a merciful and just god because the belief teaches you that you'll be tossed into a lake of fire sometime after your death for losing your faith or for not having it to begin with.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple truth is that the OT god, though a monster, was not half as bad as the NT god who was invented by the Xtians. The NT god was not satisfied with mere death; this sadistic god, created by even more

sadistic christions, decided to torture most souls in hell forever and thereby instilled fear not known before in the minds of billions of men, women and children. Wouldn't you like to have a few

minutes alone with those Xtians with the evil minds? How much death and misery to humankind that false

god has caused is beyond our ability to calculate. bill

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.