Jump to content

Genesis And The Fall


thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the beginning of Genensis we meet the story about Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

In my eyes the story seems to be symbolic. It contains a garden with a talking serpent, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a tree of life etc. Such a story cannot be taken on face value.

 

So what is this story really about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't help but seeing it as a parable about growing up, leaving childhood and accepting responsibility for your actions and decisions if you want to be a free human... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is this story really about?

First. let me repost this for anyone who had missed it..

 

Knowledge

 

I keep saying that Science and Religion are 2 sides of the same mountain. This topic of knowledge can demonstrate that fact a little all by itself.

 

On your PC, you have knowledge being stored in folders. The folders are categories and within each category are more categories. If you stored all scientific “knowledge”, you would have to store it in a similar manner. Chemistry might be one folder, Physics in another and so on.

 

Once this is done, you have what today would be called a database of knowledge. But if you look at the structure of that data base and especially if you are familiar with the old DOS filing system, you see what looks a bit like a root system of a tree. It starts from a high level category and branches down and out into small and lower levels of categories.

 

In the ancient scrolls, writing was done, not from the top to the bottom of a page, but from the bottom to the top. Thus that same categorizing would instead, appear as a tree.

 

A tree of knowledge.

 

This is not a mere coincidence. The famed tree of knowledge was exactly that same thing. It was an early attempt to record all knowledge. It began with the most fundamental concepts and branched out into subset categories from there.

 

But in addition, each branching that you see as an angle off from the trunk or a branch was named just as we name our categories and sub-categories of science. Each of those names was the name of an angle off of the tree of knowledge. Except that you are probably more familiar with those angles as “angels”. Each angel was given a name - a branch catagory of knowledge.

 

Any of a million Catholics can tell you that an “angel” is a concept or an idea. It is similar to the con man who has an “angle”.

 

The Protestants and many Christians think of an angel as a “messenger of God” – a concept concerning Reality. These concepts have great power and if they “come into” some people, they cause seriously powerful and bad consequences. This is much the same as giving a design idea to a child of how to create a nuclear weapon or teaching your enemy of chemical weaponry.

 

Devils and angels are basically the same thing except that the devil is what is declared a bad idea or concept. Not bad as in wrong, but bad as in dangerous.

 

Being “possessed by a devil” simply means that a person has accepted a really bad concept somewhere within their mind and thus behave in a less than rational manner. An exorcism is no more than an effort to get their head straight and has nothing to do with hocus pocus magic.

 

The story of the fall of Adam and Eve involved Eve’s willingness to use (partake of) the fruits of knowledge - the temptation to gain despite the consequences. This knowledge was therefore hidden. Imagine how much knowledge of how to do dangerous things is being hidden today for the same reasons. But to hide knowledge means you must also hide how to obtain or derive knowledge.

 

To hide knowledge, you must prevent rational thinking which would lead someone back to the knowledge that you are trying to keep hidden.

 

-------

 

Realize how much of a cartoon image of the Bible you have accepted as knowledge of it when the entire time, you were hearing only tales from a science of 6000 years ago that got involved in trying to hide its knowledge.

 

Religion is what became of the science from 6000 years ago. And is what science will become many years from now unless strong efforts are made to prevent it. They are identically the same thing. One has just been around for much longer and the other is much bigger with more detail. They were both made from careful observations and logical thought when they were first created.

 

It is very good to understand exactly what knowledge is. But it perhaps is even more important to understand what knowledge isn’t and how easily it can be obscured and hidden for thousands of years by chaos of rational thought.

 

After which thomas had asked why it is called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

 

The simple answer to that is that information is identified and categorized by its relevance.

 

All human senses are designed to detect changes in the environment which might be relevant to the human. A human does not have radio wave senses because they were not relevant to the human. When the human made them relevant, then the human also made a means to sense them.

 

Good and evil are a basic foundation for the relevance of knowledge. Good means that it helps the human survive and evil means that it detracts from the human's survival. The idea that good and evil are merely arbitrary, is incorrect.

 

The famous tree of the knowledge of good and evil is referring to all of the categorized and accumulated understanding at the time of that which causes good and that which causes evil (destruction).

 

The famed serpent is referring to the metaphorical concept of a serpent which is merely a subtle cause and effect chain which sneaks up on a person and poisons their mind or heart before they realize its potential. It is related to the "temptation" because this is what a temptation does. It begins as a mere thought but gradually gains momentum of desire and even lust.

 

The conversation was about the fact that Eve had already been warned of the danger but the tempting thought develops excuses to pursue what it desires. "God only told you that so that you won't be a god like Him."

 

The first excuse given by every rebellion encourager is generally "He only said that because he wants to control you. He knows it won't really hurt you. You deserve freedom."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

In short, the story is about the temptation involved in using knowledge to gain more for oneself at the risk of the health of the entire garden. It is about selfishness - the true original sin.

 

It was also stated that all are born in sin. This is a fact as long as you understand what sin really is. A new born child is striving to survive and knows nothing but selfish concerns. It takes time for the young child to learn how to cooperate and eventually how to selflessly love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning of Genensis we meet the story about Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

In my eyes the story seems to be symbolic. It contains a garden with a talking serpent, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a tree of life etc. Such a story cannot be taken on face value.

 

So what is this story really about?

 

Origins/definitions.

 

Genesis describes where a people came from, how their world came to be, and why they had such a hardscrabble existence. It sums up the whole universe (what little they knew of it) and the ancient Israelites' relationship to it.

 

It also defines the Israelites as a people. Yaweh, the cosmic alpha Jewish male, creates the world, makes a Jewish male in His image then a Jewish female from a rib. Female screws everything up and has to be subordinate to male as a result. Male has life of toil and hardship because he pissed off god (plus he lives in a freakin desert). Also, serpents are confirmed as evil.

 

Almost all people's religions, major or tribal, contain an attempt to explain who they are and where they came from, and why the world is the way it is. The Egyptians did, the Greeks did, the Ute did, and Judiasm is no different. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Origins/definitions.

 

Genesis describes where a people came from, how their world came to be, and why they had such a hardscrabble existence. It sums up the whole universe (what little they knew of it) and the ancient Israelites' relationship to it.

 

It also defines the Israelites as a people. Yaweh, the cosmic alpha Jewish male, creates the world, makes a Jewish male in His image then a Jewish female from a rib. Female screws everything up and has to be subordinate to male as a result. Male has life of toil and hardship because he pissed off god (plus he lives in a freakin desert). Also, serpents are confirmed as evil.

This is a serious over simplification especially concerning the male-female roles.

 

Adham was the first Man, not the first hu-man. The "hu" refers to the "lowest order of" something as in humus (dirt). Adham was the first ordering of Mankind, the first "world order" (for what they knew of it).

 

The concerns of evolution have never had anything to do with Adham or Eve.

 

Eve was created out of a "rib" of Adham. This means that the basic skeletal structure of the organization of Adham especially around the heart, was used to create an order of women.

 

The Masons and the Eastern Star are very similar in this regard.

 

The "clay" spoken of refers to those men and issues which would stick together such that an order could be formed.

 

The female has very good evolutionary reasons for being more prone to insecurities and changes of heart. Without these traits, the human race would at best still be in the jungle.

 

Eve is the one in the story who is tempted into the wanty selfishness simply because the female order was more easily willing to accept any excuse to pursue what she wanted.

 

Adham does not turn against her, just as many husbands won't even though he thinks it unwise. He goes along with her because just as the fruit was her temptation, she is his temptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning of Genensis we meet the story about Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

In my eyes the story seems to be symbolic. It contains a garden with a talking serpent, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a tree of life etc. Such a story cannot be taken on face value.

 

So what is this story really about?

The question should be "what is mythology really about?". Getting past any absurd quibbles about it representing actual history and science and approaching it rightly as mythology, the story can be many things and say many things. It depends what you are focused on at the moment and want to see in it. There is no single way of looking at it. That's the nature and power of mythology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends what you are focused on at the moment and want to see in it. There is no single way of looking at it. That's the nature and power of mythology.
To translate ANY metaphorical story..

 

1) Consistency

2) Completeness

3) Relevance

 

Any translation which can truly meet these qualities is rationaly valid and probably the intention of the writer.

 

Finding more than one translation which can carry all of these qualities isn't likely.

 

The relevance issue becomes particular interesting because with that one translation, all of the supernatural events become explained and thus are no longer supernatural. This is a very relevant issue.

 

With that one translation, science and the Bible meet without conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there are those who like in the movie PI, finding hidden meanings through codes and systems being applied to the bible and whatnot. That in itself is also a system of mythology, reading what they want to see with secret mystery keys, which in itself adds to a special power of belief behind the derived meaning for them.

 

For myself, I think limiting the power of a myth to a single reading, whether through intuition, a system of numerology, secret hidden keys revealed to the initiated through sky charts or modern computer codes, tea leaves, owl guts, or any other such system of "science" reduces it's power. The power of a myth is in its ability to speak to the moment for the person reading it. Mythology is not a system of objective truth.

 

P.S. If anyone hasn't seen the movie PI, I would recommend it as it looks at this topic from an interesting perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adham was the first Man, not the first hu-man. The "hu" refers to the "lowest order of" something as in humus (dirt). Adham was the first ordering of Mankind, the first "world order" (for what they knew of it).

 

I'm sorry Ssel, but what is your reference for this? My understanding has always been that "human" comes from "humanis" the adjectival conjugation of "homonis", the noun used to connote our species in contrast to "vir" (ie virile) the noun specifically use for "man" in the gender specific sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there are those who like in the movie PI, finding hidden meanings through codes and systems being applied to the bible and whatnot. That in itself is also a system of mythology, reading what they want to see with secret mystery keys, which in itself adds to a special power of belief behind the derived meaning for them.
This is resolved with the issue of completeness and relevance.

 

If a translation totally covers the entire story while remaining consistent, then it is not at all like the popular speculations. If, in addition, all supernatural aspects are explained as truly science oriented and believable occurrences, then the translation gains even further probability of being accurate.

 

Films such a "PI" depict anyone who is attempting to find the meaning of something as insane, but clever. There are many such films made today. I would question who it is that is being more manipulative and clever, the one attempting to find a consistent, complete, and relevant means of translating something, or the one who is consistently displaying that any such endeavor is only the behavior of a insidious mad man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Ssel, but what is your reference for this? My understanding has always been that "human" comes from "humanis" the adjectival conjugation of "homonis", the noun used to connote our species in contrast to "vir" (ie virile) the noun specifically use for "man" in the gender specific sense.
First realize that you are talking about "changing definitions". This is why many people do not trust the online dictionaries because they allow the manipulation of definitions which then persuades beliefs.

 

You have pointed out that the word human and the word homonis are derivatives. Where did you get that idea? And also...

 

Homonis - from the word homo, meaning self. (nothing to do with species)

 

Human - referring to a particular species or an individual.

 

Man - often referring to either an individual or the entire grouping of Mankind.

 

"Hu" - as in "hue", "humus", and "human", refers to the lower order of something.

 

Using the word "human" to mean only the individual when referencing older usages makes sense in that it fits the use of "hu" as well as the use of "man" and a common use of "human".

 

The translation that I am talking about allows science and the Bible to both make sense. This in itself is not proof that the translation and use of words is correct, but it is seriously relevant when one is trying to determine if the Bible actually is referring to anything real.

 

A prejudice perspective will sway anyone from accepting any translation that actually makes sense. The objective of the prejudice is to insist on the Bible being non-sense and thus to be ignored or disrespected.

 

An objective outlook requires that possible translations, especially any leading to cohesiveness with science, must be examined before judgments are made.

 

The translations must be consistent, complete, and relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My translation comes from my own education in the Latin language. I believe your are mistakingly assuming that the "hu" in human is the same as the prefix "hu" which can indeed imply "beneath" or "below in order". Again, my understanding of the latin language was that "humanis" was the adjective conjugate for "homonis". Now granted, I don't have my latin dictionary with me and I could be mistaken.

 

Another question about your particular method:

"The translations must be consistent, complete, and relevant."

 

How is it even possible to have a "consistent" metaphorical language in a work that is a composite of multiple authors from multiple cultures acrossed a span of centuries that has, in turn, been translated several times before reaching it's current state?

 

Certainly, I could see being able to recreate the metaphoric ideas in the ancient language they were written in, but translations are notorious for their inability to convey symbolic language and metaphors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eve is the one in the story who is tempted into the wanty selfishness simply because the female order was more easily willing to accept any excuse to pursue what she wanted.

 

Adham does not turn against her, just as many husbands won't even though he thinks it unwise. He goes along with her because just as the fruit was her temptation, she is his temptation.

 

Whatever - but the story of Genesis is clearly, obviously as I described it: an attempt by ancients to explain their origins. And it differs very little in it's intentions from virtually every other religious explanation of the world as it relates to a particular people.

 

For example, the Ute tribes in North America, whose world-view of themselves is in some ways strikingly similar to the ancient Israelites:

 

The Creation

 

It began long ago when there were no people on the Earth.

 

Sinewav, the Creator, cut sticks and put them in a bag.

 

Coyote, the curious trickster he is, waited until Sinewav was gone and opened the bag to see what was inside. Many, many people came rushing out, running in every direction and speaking many different languages. Only a few remained in the bag.

 

Sinewav was angry, very angry. He had planned to give each group its own place on the earth so they would not fight. Coyote, spoiling that plan, meant wars would begin all over the land.

 

Sinewav took the bag, and saw the few that remained.

 

He said, “These people will be a very brave and very strong people.”

 

“These people will be called...Ute.”

 

http://www.southernutemuseum.org/

 

Personally, I think the Ute creationist myth is much stronger and more believable than the convoluted OT myths. And a lot more fun! The Ute beliefs in general are generally superior to Judea-Christian in a lot of ways, actually. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My translation comes from my own education in the Latin language.
Also consider that the words that we are talking about are the words used by the King James translations. The word "human", as far as I know was never used, although there are cases where it is evident that the word "Man" was referring to mankind.

 

In Latin the use of the word and derivations of "homo" referred to an single entity (self) which usually referred to a human enity. "Humanus" is a Latin plural word similar to a "Humanity", referring to many of the humans. Neither of these directly address the use of the word "Man" which is the only word used in the KJV.

 

How is it even possible to have a "consistent" metaphorical language in a work that is a composite of multiple authors from multiple cultures acrossed a span of centuries that has, in turn, been translated several times before reaching it's current state?
This interesting occurrence is due to the conceptual consistencies within the language. There is a basic usage, for example, used to define all of reality as being made of

 

1) Earth

2) Wind

3) Water

4) Fire

 

These are consistant concepts of;

 

1) The material

2) The unseen, sweeping influences

3) The issues of life

4) The destructive, conflicting passions

 

These same concepts are used without agreement from the writers but simply because they fit, in concept. This is similar to different cultures coming up with numbering systems that agree even thought they used different words or base systems. The mind sees what is relevant and forms models. These models reflect common patterns of other things. Those other things are then used in poetry, allegory, and metaphor.

 

In addition when the Bible was put together as a single book, any scriptures which were seen as distorting a consistent usage was left out. This was not done to hide any truth, but merely to keep the document consistent in its metaphoric uses.

 

Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others use very similar metaphor constructs. ALL ancient scripts involved in magic strictly use metaphor because they must hide the tricks or they simply don't work.

 

Word for word translations do NOT affect the concept conveyance IF the metaphors are properly understood by the translators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinewav, the Creator, cut sticks and put them in a bag.
Ha ha.

 

First, it is a little hard for me to believe that the Ute Indians ever had the word "Sinewav" in their language.

 

But besides that, IF, IF there is a translation of their story which is consistent, complete, and relevant, and especially if it then agrees with what science has deduced, then they could very well be right.

 

What I believe is the proper translation of the Bible agrees completely with science as to the origins of Man as well as the influences of all things. There is no conflict except between the scientists who know only literal readings and the religious who also only know literal readings (mostly the SCC).

 

The literal readings are simply non-sense. And even though many translations can be claimed, I am only aware of one that actually strictly meets the criteria for ANY translation or cohesive thinking.

 

Claim whatever you prefer, but by all means, prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to point something out in regards to this statment

Eve was created out of a "rib" of Adham. This means that the basic skeletal structure of the organization of Adham especially around the heart, was used to create an order of women.

 

While this is an interisting mystical interpretation, and I have no desire to convince you it's wrong....it is not the interpretation the original author(s) would have given it.

 

As I'm sure you know, there are two creation stories in Genesis, only one has the part about the rib. This story had been around in Jewish mytholgy for a long time before it was written down in Genesis, and was part of a larger creation story in which Adam had a first wife named Lilith. Lilith leaves Adam, which is when God puts adam to sleep and takes his rib to make him another wife. The sybolism her was that Eve would never leave Adam like Lilith did because she was part of his body. Almost every bible scholar (with the exception of the fundy ones) I've read on the subject agree that this larger story is where the reference to the rib comes from.

 

The reason Lilith doesn't show up in the version in the bible is that someone (most likely the person who edited the various sources for the first 5 books into the current form) edited that part of the story out for some unknown reason. I could go into more detail about the editing process and various theroies about sources...but that would be off topic somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is an interisting mystical interpretation, and I have no desire to convince you it's wrong....it is not the interpretation the original author(s) would have given it.
Since we are talking about Moses here, I am curious how you would prove this assertion.

 

The reason Lilith doesn't show up in the version in the bible is that someone (most likely the person who edited the various sources for the first 5 books into the current form) edited that part of the story out for some unknown reason. I could go into more detail about the editing process and various theroies about sources...but that would be off topic somewhat.
I don't think that this would be off topic at all and I am interested in what you have to say about this possible different translation. But I need to add that what you have said so far does not negate what I have said at all.

 

---------

But, frankly, it sounds a lot more like recent excuse making for accepting divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is an interisting mystical interpretation, and I have no desire to convince you it's wrong....it is not the interpretation the original author(s) would have given it.
Since we are talking about Moses here, I am curious how you would prove this assertion.

 

The reason Lilith doesn't show up in the version in the bible is that someone (most likely the person who edited the various sources for the first 5 books into the current form) edited that part of the story out for some unknown reason. I could go into more detail about the editing process and various theroies about sources...but that would be off topic somewhat.
I don't think that this would be off topic at all and I am interested in what you have to say about this possible different translation. But I need to add that what you have said so far does not negate what I have said at all.

 

uh....moses did not write the first 5 books of the bible...the chance that he did is almost 0%

 

The most common theory regarding how the first 5 books were created is that first off most of the stories were oral traditions for quite some time. its also importaint to note that acording to most modern archeologists the exodus never happened. The Jews were a group indegiounus to Palastine. In any case there were many oral stories handed down....just as in any of the pagan religions at the time, most traditions were oral, but at some point people started writing them down. Then in about 700 B.C.E. ( not sure of the exact date) the northern tribes were taken by Asyria, and intermaried with them disapearing into Asyrian culture.

 

Later on in about 500 B.C.E. the two southern tribes were captured and taken off to Babylon. Scholars think that there were two main sources for the first 5 Books that they call J source and E source. Its posible that these were writen by just two different writers or posibly more. Scholars seperate the sources by differing theolgical standpoints as well as lauguage and style. During Babylonian exile a third person edited the two documents along and probably other fragments as well, into the first 5 books. Its thought that this was likely done to atempt to solidify the Jews living in Babylon. Since the northen tribes has simply disapeared into Asyria, they were likely afraid the same thing would happen to them and decided to take all of there legends and writings and bring them together into a single grouping in hopes of keeping themselves together as a people.

 

This is even more evident when you read the first creation story and compare it to the Babylonian creation myth, at many points the first creation story apears to reference and often counterpoint things in the Babyloian myth, as if they were trying to show that thier own story was better than the Babyloian one.

 

Oh and like I said, I wasn't even trying to disprove your interpretation, just point out that it wasn't the way the orginal authors would have interpreted it. :shrug: Thats the thing about mystical interpritations...they aren't really dependant on the original intent since they focus on reading between the lines, or seeing the meaning beyond the meaning. I don't personally have any problem with that. I'm not really sure if its real or not, but I have no problem with it. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition when the Bible was put together as a single book, any scriptures which were seen as distorting a consistent usage was left out. This was not done to hide any truth, but merely to keep the document consistent in its metaphoric uses.

 

If this is the case, then why did many of the gnostic gospels, for instance, the Gospel of Thomas, get excluded? More than any of the other books, this one seems to convey the version of god and jesus' relationship closest to what you say is the entire point of the book.

 

The ability for the symbolic language to be consistent would, as you say, require that the translators already know the sympolic language being used. This implies a "key" that was known by the church up until at least the time the King James version was compiled. While this is possible, how do you explain the loss of this "key" by the majority of the christian faiths found today and the decent into literalism?

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What methodology is used to determine which symbolism/interpretation is chosen and correct, if any, of the Fall in Genesis (or in any ideology, for that matter)?

 

Through my tour of duty in christianity, I believed in every possible interpretation, to which I then rejected the one I previously held. Now I reject all interpretations, and accept it as it is written (and reject that as well), simply because I have not found the answer to the above question that is satisfactory to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh....moses did not write the first 5 books of the bible...the chance that he did is almost 0%
I think it is well accepted that Moses was not the scribe involved, but the theory is that Moses passed the story as "the word of God" verbally and then it was eventually written.

 

I also agree that the Jews were not simply a group of people who had such a clear line of descent and also agree that they pulled together all that they could so as to unite all of the remaining tribes of Israelites into a single body adapting the name "Jew".

 

The objection that I see is only that you have asserted that the original writers would interpret the stories in one particular way with inferences concerning why the "rib" was referenced at all. This, I see no evidence of from either story other than what some scholars were guessing about. So who were these scholars? What makes them think that the rib reference was merely talking about Eve being more devoted?

 

The explanation that the rib represented a skeletal organization for the order of women at the time makes a bit more sense especially when you consider that they were talking about an order of people, not a single human.

 

If the story is merely taken to accept that Adam was the first human, then obviously the entire story becomes very unlikely. Science agrees that Man developed very slowly and there wasn't really a first human.

 

The story of Adham having a first wife implies more of a literal reading which is obviously going to only lead to the acceptance that it is all non-sense. I would suspect that if there was a Lilith, that she was merely a first attempt to have an order of women but they would not faithfully stick to their order or perhaps contend with Adham too much.

 

Either way, a translation that allows for Adham to be an order of people rather than the first human is the only way to finally attach all of the other consistent metaphors into an realistic story. This single usage does not even represent a metaphor but really just a consistent use of the word "Man".

 

By using consistent translations, the entire Biblical story finally comes together as a sensible and very probably true story. Speculations begin to fade away as the consistency and relevance issues are held tightly.

 

But still, what are your sources for their speculated intentions? IF the source for their speculations actually has conflicting metaphorical implications, than this could be valid reasoning for dismissing the entire set of metaphors.

 

But also remember that at times, some writers abuse a metaphor which the collectors later weed out simply to keep the consistency issue intact. This is a reasoning for editing out some scriptures before the collection is labeled as a "Holy word". When a metaphor is abused it indicates that the reliability of the writer on other issues is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is possible, how do you explain the loss of this "key" by the majority of the christian faiths found today and the decent into literalism?
Two factors involved,

 

First, the English saw the systematic potential of the belief system. They took it merely as such so as to remove power from the Catholic and allow for a church of England. This was probably the most serious abuse of the entire story.

 

But leading from there, after America accepted the idea that churches are free to be created by anyone who wants to, what was a more centralized system of belief became a widely distributed group of systems of belief. After 200 years, the original non-systematic intent became a very small minority.

 

 

The second issue is the fact that churches are directly involved in attempting to maintain a degree of unity and civilization with a great many people who are not greatly civilized. If the formulae for how to do many social things is released and discussed openly to the general public, then social engineering movements get started by very narrow minded people.

 

As I said before, this is similar to explaining chemical warfare tactics and design with your enemies. The higher people, "in the know" have far more interest in maintaining some degree of civility than they have for revealing any high order understanding.

 

Science does the same thing today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What methodology is used to determine which symbolism/interpretation is chosen and correct, if any, of the Fall in Genesis (or in any ideology, for that matter)?

 

1) Consistent use of the same translated words throughout

2) Completeness of using the translation for the entire document, not merely the convenient spots.

3) Relevance - the resulting translation must signify something that would merit its writing or fame.

 

I, personally would add a fourth..

 

4) Science (traditional) must be upheld by the resultant translation.

 

As science becomes more and more a faith following rather than the more hard core logical entity that it started as, trying to make the new generation of science fit anything could become impossible.

 

But at this point, there is still plenty of traditional science around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.