Genesis And The Fall

[not1not2]

So eve is created, being brought out of "His" side (the literal hebrew does not say 'rib' in the first part of the genesis myth/story). BTW, Adam before this is regarded in the plural. So, now Adam has necessarily divided his own essence to create an companion.

Hi Not1not2, I find this whole post very interesting.

 

The way I had been interpreting the text, I thought the concept of woman was initiated by a more specific separation of roles for mankind, allocated according to gender. Is this in line with what you are saying?

 

This discursive element is rebellious in a sense as it takes us out of the unconditional awareness (a unitive state of consciousness) which experiences a unity with the divine 'Other'. It also seems to deal with the identification process of mind which associates one to be the body/mind, rather than the observer of the body/mind. In this sense, one who 'eats' (which has strong correlations with knowing) this fruit will certainly experience death and all the trappings of conditional existence.

 

Is this more like the book The Power of Now? Where I think he suggests that our thoughts go masquerading as who we are, which is incorrect... because it is the 'awareness' of our thoughts is who we are, and not the actual thoughts themself. I like this because it allows one to examine their thoughts about themselves for their validity, instead of assume that what we say about ourselves is true.

 

Dear amanda,

 

In kabbalah there are basically four levels of analysis of scripture: the literal, the moral, the allegory, and the essence or direct experience. I remember reading somewhere that this 4-level breakdown originated with some muslims back around the 12th century in spain. Probably something along the lines of the Sufi movement, but I'm really not sure.

 

Anyway, my analysis was on the allegorical level. There are still the literal level (the Torah narrative framing) and the moral levels (which is represented in the Talmud). The roles of man/woman are more on the moral level. The narrative is the base for both the moral and allegorical teachings.

 

The Talmudic (moral) aspect of the narrative is what is/was commonly taught in the synagogues. It is essential to group unity and sustanence. The talmudic aspect guide all aspects of day to day life in traditional jewish society.

 

The allegorical level was selectively taught to the more morally upstanding members of Jewish society, as they would not abuse or get thrown off balance by some of the teachings found in, say, the Song of Solomon for example. Also, I believe there was an injunction that this stuff was not taught, traditionally, until age 40.

 

In regards to the later comment of yours, I've never read the Power of Now, but it was drawn from a buddhist thought (zen specifically) on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Buddhism really focuses on being in the present moment, so I can imagine why there is a similarity.

 

And with the identification thing, a lot of us do in fact get caught identifying with our thoughts, our feelings, our perceptions on a regular basis (instead of just recognizing them as thoughts, feelings, and perceptions). In fact, for most of us, this is the story of 'our' lives. So, in this sense, the fall of Genesis is not a one time event, but a moment to moment occurence which develops into habit. If we can break this habit, we will not taste death, so to speak. Or at least we won't be confused about what is going on when that happens.

 

I could probably write a lot more, but I'll leave at this for now.

 

take care

 

_/\_

[NotBlinded]

Dear amanda,

 

In kabbalah there are basically four levels of analysis of scripture: the literal, the moral, the allegory, and the essence or direct experience. I remember reading somewhere that this 4-level breakdown originated with some muslims back around the 12th century in spain. Probably something along the lines of the Sufi movement, but I'm really not sure.

 

Anyway, my analysis was on the allegorical level. There are still the literal level (the Torah narrative framing) and the moral levels (which is represented in the Talmud). The roles of man/woman are more on the moral level. The narrative is the base for both the moral and allegorical teachings.

 

The Talmudic (moral) aspect of the narrative is what is/was commonly taught in the synagogues. It is essential to group unity and sustanence. The talmudic aspect guide all aspects of day to day life in traditional jewish society.

 

The allegorical level was selectively taught to the more morally upstanding members of Jewish society, as they would not abuse or get thrown off balance by some of the teachings found in, say, the Song of Solomon for example. Also, I believe there was an injunction that this stuff was not taught, traditionally, until age 40.

 

In regards to the later comment of yours, I've never read the Power of Now, but it was drawn from a buddhist thought (zen specifically) on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Buddhism really focuses on being in the present moment, so I can imagine why there is a similarity.

 

And with the identification thing, a lot of us do in fact get caught identifying with our thoughts, our feelings, our perceptions on a regular basis (instead of just recognizing them as thoughts, feelings, and perceptions). In fact, for most of us, this is the story of 'our' lives. So, in this sense, the fall of Genesis is not a one time event, but a moment to moment occurence which develops into habit. If we can break this habit, we will not taste death, so to speak. Or at least we won't be confused about what is going on when that happens.

 

I could probably write a lot more, but I'll leave at this for now.

 

take care

 

_/\_

Awesome...I love this stuff!

[Amanda]

Anyway, my analysis was on the allegorical level. There are still the literal level (the Torah narrative framing) and the moral levels (which is represented in the Talmud). The roles of man/woman are more on the moral level. The narrative is the base for both the moral and allegorical teachings.

 

I am enjoying your insights too, yet they are often complicated for me... because I am not familiar with them. I'd like to be though.

 

However, I think that these renderings also include their versions of science too. Maybe the literal level in some regards? It seems the time of "Adam and Eve", and I don't think it was so much of individuals but of our "kind" then, is in regards to their social evolution. This time periods seem to equate when mankind was starting a more stabilized lifestyle from their normally nomadic ways. This brought new needs for different processes of lifestyle, and instead of everyone duplicating roles, they thought it best to compliment each other by designating roles according to gender. Even today, it seems opposites attract. Hence, 'helpmates' for man, since I'm sure physical superiority was seen as the most advantageous at the time?

[not1not2]

However, I think that these renderings also include their versions of science too. Maybe the literal level in some regards? It seems the time of "Adam and Eve", and I don't think it was so much of individuals but of our "kind" then, is in regards to their social evolution. This time periods seem to equate when mankind was starting a more stabilized lifestyle from their normally nomadic ways. This brought new needs for different processes of lifestyle, and instead of everyone duplicating roles, they thought it best to compliment each other by designating roles according to gender. Even today, it seems opposites attract. Hence, 'helpmates' for man, since I'm sure physical superiority was seen as the most advantageous at the time?

 

Sure, I would say there is a definite attempt at science here. Ever heard of the Sefer Yetzirah? And Gematria? (those are both over my head, btw)

 

Additionally, we have to realize that these stories are created off of sparse data, by our current standards, and the tools of observation were MUCH different at the time (ie-introspection, ecstatic states, and natural observation). So it follows that they have come to many conclusions that we today would not necessarily come to.

 

And a good portion of Torah is directly aimed at socially constructive activities. Most of the Torah laws are actually health injunctions.

 

_/\_

[Amanda]

Ever heard of the Sefer Yetzirah? And Gematria? (those are both over my head, btw)

If it's over your head, I KNOW it's over mine. I'm glad to know it's out there though.

Additionally, we have to realize that these stories are created off of sparse data, by our current standards, and the tools of observation were MUCH different at the time (ie-introspection, ecstatic states, and natural observation). So it follows that they have come to many conclusions that we today would not necessarily come to.

I agree with most of this, and would also suggest they greatly lacked in articulation skills. However, it seems people back then were quite introspective! Sure they didn't have the theories nor communication means we have today to springboard or evaluate their thoughts more critically. As for being introspective, especially the Buddhist and Hindu of those times were simply amazing IMO. Also, I'm now learning of other spiritual teachers of long ago, that developed philosophies that are just incredibly insightful! I'm almost wondering if we made a wrong turn somewhere when looking at more modern 'spiritual' teachings? What happened?

[not1not2]

I agree with most of this, and would also suggest they greatly lacked in articulation skills. However, it seems people back then were quite introspective! Sure they didn't have the theories nor communication means we have today to springboard or evaluate their thoughts more critically. As for being introspective, especially the Buddhist and Hindu of those times were simply amazing IMO. Also, I'm now learning of other spiritual teachers of long ago, that developed philosophies that are just incredibly insightful! I'm almost wondering if we made a wrong turn somewhere when looking at more modern 'spiritual' teachings? What happened?

 

I consider it a reflection of our societal context. Look at things nowadays. As Sprite says 'Image is Everything'. So much for subtlety and depth. We live in an air conditioned, convenience-based society which is very externally oriented. Along with the advent of modern science, our population has basically exploded and all manner of distractions abound. This is creating a worldwide cultural shift that certain traditionalist groups are violently resisting. There is a lot of fear of change and growth.

 

Consider the environment at the time which these philosophies developed. They were generally nomadic peoples with little sense of ownership and had to really rely and depend on one another and nature for survival. A good deal of their time was spent in the open air and under the stars, without the double boons of Central Air and Natural Gas heating to shield them from seasonal changes. No televisions or walkman's to while away the hours with either. Just themselves, each other and nature. No wonder these nomadic shepherd folk were so introspective. What else did they have to do?

 

Take a drive out to the country at on a clear night sometime and just look at the stars. How vast and innumerable? One can really get an idea of the religious sense of awe that our ancestors had up until relatively recent times.

 

Now, it wasn't all peachy keen then either. Winters left people dead, diseases were devastating, food was hard to come by and cultivate. Lot's and lot's of difficulties and uncertainty. One can understand how things went in the direction they went.

 

anyway, i'm starting to ramble.

 

take care

 

_/\_

[MQTA]

 

 

However, I think that these renderings also include their versions of science too. Maybe the literal level in some regards? It seems the time of "Adam and Eve", and I don't think it was so much of individuals but of our "kind" then, is in regards to their social evolution. This time periods seem to equate when mankind was starting a more stabilized lifestyle from their normally nomadic ways. This brought new needs for different processes of lifestyle, and instead of everyone duplicating roles, they thought it best to compliment each other by designating roles according to gender. Even today, it seems opposites attract. Hence, 'helpmates' for man, since I'm sure physical superiority was seen as the most advantageous at the time?

 

Who's perspective is this story written in? Adam's? Eve's? God's? the Serpent's? or as a play with a narrator? He was off the side, out of view, like a paparazzi.

 

An uneducated girl child who gets her older brother to share a cookie they're not allowed to have before dinner. Adam gets caught with chocolate chip on his mouth, Adam, why did you have that cookie? "Eve told me it was good" But didn't I tell you not to eat it or ye shall surely get worms? "Yes, but Eve told me a serpent was eating them and he said he wasn't a worm, worms don't have legs"

 

Would mommy believe Eve was really TALKING to a serpent? She barely knows the language, she's not even out of diapers yet. It's not Adam's fault, all brothers would trust their sister until they learn otherwise.

 

Why was the cookie jar in the middle of their crib, anyway? Wouldn't you put it up in a closet somewhere, safe, dry, and out of the way?

[Amanda]

Who's perspective is this story written in? Adam's? Eve's? God's? the Serpent's? or as a play with a narrator? He was off the side, out of view, like a paparazzi.

 

An uneducated girl child who gets her older brother to share a cookie they're not allowed to have before dinner. Adam gets caught with chocolate chip on his mouth, Adam, why did you have that cookie? "Eve told me it was good" But didn't I tell you not to eat it or ye shall surely get worms? "Yes, but Eve told me a serpent was eating them and he said he wasn't a worm, worms don't have legs"

 

Would mommy believe Eve was really TALKING to a serpent? She barely knows the language, she's not even out of diapers yet. It's not Adam's fault, all brothers would trust their sister until they learn otherwise.

 

Why was the cookie jar in the middle of their crib, anyway? Wouldn't you put it up in a closet somewhere, safe, dry, and out of the way?

Hi MQTA! That's the way it seems when it''s read completey literally to me too! Especially according to the KJV and such! I've discovered that it can be taken as an allegory, which makes it like a mystery to figure it out... and to me, much more interesting!

 

Taken as an allegory, which I think it was meant to be, then there becomes a deeper meaning. As someone else mentioned on this site, it is suggested by some that there are actually 4 levels in which to analyze these stories. I was just suggesting how they may have infused their account of social sciences into this tale.

 

It seems that we just came out of the last ice age a few thousand years before this narrative. About a thousand years prior, as I understand, there became a new mutant wheat which made it possible to successfully sow and count on a crop to be sustained for harvesting. New fertile land and this new wheat ushered in the ability to maintain a stable lifestyle instead of nomadic ways, hence the rise of communities/cities. This stable lifestyle brought on new processes for living, and I think there were these separation of more specific working roles allocated according to gender... to compliment each other instead of duplicating each other. Hence, they took a side of mankind and made woman... in the sense of distinguishing her by her new roles as separate of that of a man. And a man probably being considered superior because of the advantageous physical capabilities exceding that of the female... of those times.

 

It seems most of us agree in this thread that Adam and Eve are probably not one man and one woman, but representative of a 'kind' of man, mankind at that time. There are spiritual allegoris associated with these two also, although I'm not as familiar with these interpretations as others here. I've heard that the serpent could be representative of several things. One I've heard of is just confusion, a sneaky concept that can come to one and strike them with a poison that can bring emotional turmoil... therefore bringing death to the will to thrive. There's other versions too!

 

As for putting the forbidden fruit in the middle of the garden instead of on the edge, or even to have it all... suggests to me it was intended to be eaten all along. But of course the fruit is just an allegory for something else too, IMO. I"m curious MQTA, if you were to take this story as an allegory, how would YOU decipher the encrypted message? -----

[MQTA]

I"m curious MQTA, if you were to take this story as an allegory, how would YOU decipher the encrypted message? -----

 

I don't know... if it's just allegory, then what about the REST? How do we know the ressurection wasn't just allegory? Paul seems to show it was just that. If Genesis is allegory, then Adam did not actually sin and we don't need redemption, eh?

 

For anyone to allude "allegory" in Genesis' first chapters leads to other issues. For you imply would then imply that in the gospel of Luke's chapter 3 geneology of Jesus Himself, would declare that the first two thirds of his forefathers from His day backwards are real, and the first third, or the initial first forefather(s) were allegorical.

 

 

 

 

http://www.jovialatheist.com/bibleerrors.html from here:

 

"

some believers tell us the story is an allegory. That is, eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge "symbolizes" studying, experimenting or observing in order to gain knowledge. So as an allegory, this story tells us it is a sin to study and gain knowledge.

 

If that is so, the story is still false. It is unscientific. It is even inhumane. Without knowledge, man's civilization would never have developed, or would have been eliminated from the face of the earth by evolution. Man has evolved as he has, because he DID accumulate knowledge. His brain grew as he stretched it by seeking knowledge. As his brain grew, so grew his ability to learn, to survive and to develop. Man dominates the earth today because he has, does and will, gain knowledge. NO! The story as an allegory is WORSE than the story as literal. It will not do. It is false! It is anti humane. It is unscientific. This story as an allegory is a terrible sin against man.

 

"

[Amanda]

I don't know... if it's just allegory, then what about the REST?

MQTA... Good question, IMO! I have come to believe, especially after researching some on myths, that I think the Bible has become a conglomeration of many things. One being some insights on spiritual awareness. However, I have come to believe that some of these occurrences do contain some essence of truth, yet probably have myths and other interpretations superimposed onto them. A secular archeologist seems to be able to validate these OT occurrences now. BTW, I think a lot of myths are allegories too, fwiw.

How do we know the ressurection wasn't just allegory? Paul seems to show it was just that.

As far as I know, no one KNOWS this. I happen to think it did happen, yet possibly embellished through the years. The message attached to it is a powerful one, IMO. It is the message that is really important to me. There are some Islamic accounts that Jesus went to live in other countries, I think Iran, after his supposed resurrection.

If Genesis is allegory, then Adam did not actually sin and we don't need redemption, eh?

As I think the story implies, we only need redemption from ourselves... from the way we have come to think about ourself and others to a more uplifting way.

For anyone to allude "allegory" in Genesis' first chapters leads to other issues. For you imply would then imply that in the gospel of Luke's chapter 3 geneology of Jesus Himself, would declare that the first two thirds of his forefathers from His day backwards are real, and the first third, or the initial first forefather(s) were allegorical.

Like I said, I do think there is some truth to these accounts. These geneologies are not really important. Even if Jesus is to be the son of God, and not Joseph, then many feel he has no hereditary rights... and some say Joseph's lineage has a person who is cursed through all his descendents. IMO, this only says to be a creation of God, a son or daughter, no one has to come through any lineage because no one is better than anyone else because of their bloodlines. We are ALL adopted into the same family by choice, not by bloodlines. Further, ALL hereditary (or otherwise) curses are broken and no longer have any effect on any of us. Eventually EVERYONE will end in the same place of peace and joy, IMO.

some believers tell us the story is an allegory. That is, eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge "symbolizes" studying, experimenting or observing in order to gain knowledge. So as an allegory, this story tells us it is a sin to study and gain knowledge.

I suppose that is ONE concept, however not one I totally agree. What is produced from the knowledge of good and evil may be considered its fruit. I think judgement is this fruit. If you don't know good and evil, how can one judge? Judging can be good, but it can be bad also. The forbidden fruit is the bad sense of judgement. It is judging unto condemnation, IMO. Adam, condemned/blamed God and Eve for his predicament. Eve blamed the devil. It seems we've been blaming someone else, God, or the devil ever since. Not only is this detrimental to those we condemn, but it also vacates our own responsibilities to the situation. So, IMO, the tree of life is to judge unto victory, to discern solutions instead of blame. Of course, I like other interpretations I've recently read on this thread also.

If that is so, the story is still false. It is unscientific. It is even inhumane. Without knowledge, man's civilization would never have developed, or would have been eliminated from the face of the earth by evolution. Man has evolved as he has, because he DID accumulate knowledge. His brain grew as he stretched it by seeking knowledge. As his brain grew, so grew his ability to learn, to survive and to develop. Man dominates the earth today because he has, does and will, gain knowledge. NO! The story as an allegory is WORSE than the story as literal. It will not do. It is false! It is anti humane. It is unscientific. This story as an allegory is a terrible sin against man.

I agree with you on what benefits knowledge has brought us! This knowledge of good and evil has been of great benefit in creating civilized ways of interacting with each other, therefore civilization. I agree with all the other benefits you have listed here. The only thing (fruit) that is produced from the knowledge of good and evil which is forbidden is condemnation. What possible purpose does this have? If we are going to evaluate a situation, hopefully it is for solutions that create overcomers, and not condemnation that has no positive purpose.

 

Of course MQTA, this is just all my personal insights I got from the allegory... and nothing more.

[MQTA]

Adam, condemned/blamed God and Eve for his predicament. Eve blamed the devil. It seems we've been blaming someone else, God, or the devil ever since.

 

No, Eve blamed a Serpent, like a little girl blaming her Teddy Bear or Miss Molly Folly dolly

 

 

 

That's why I am so glad I found Wayne Dyer's books, none compare since, nor before. Nothing had an impact on me like what I got out of his early books.

 

You can keep your allegory, I'll keep what I got

[Amanda]

That's why I am so glad I found Wayne Dyer's books, none compare since, nor before. Nothing had an impact on me like what I got out of his early books.

 

MQTA, I love Wayne Dyer!

 

Do you like his buddy Depak Chopra too?

[MQTA]

Nobody compares to Wayne. Deepak has some interesting ideas, but has some pretty bizarre ones, too.

 

I would consider Wayne my savior, I didn't think I was on a doomed path prior, but it sure helped me change everything nearly 13 years ago now.

[not1not2]

Here's my understanding of the literal/allegorical thing.

 

Basically, if you study how Jewish oral tradition works (or any oral tradition for that matter), this mess sort of clears up. What happens is, the tribal equivalent of Shaman or Patriarch along with the village elders re-tell the basic history of their people and their own view of creation, god(s), and so on. Through time, the basic facts and events remain, for the most part, the same but certain elements are embellished for effect. Eventually all their cultural mores and beliefs become contained in the telling of the story. Since the jewish story had been passed on for literally thousands of years before being committed to writing in the form we know it today, it seems only likely that a lot of the 'historical' data in the Jewish tradition (before the develoment of scribes as official record-keepers) is only loosely accurate in an historical sense.

 

So, as the spiritual/moral/wisdom lessons were more essential to survival than the historical ones, it seems appropriate that the narratives were largely framed in a way friendly to allegorical interpretations.

 

It is also interesting to note that the written Torah is not the only part of Judaism. It is also important to look into the Talmudic and Midrashic traditions, which recognize a lot of the moral dilemmas in the OT regarding their own history and the harsh nature of God. A lot of the difficulties that we here have with the OT have been shared by Jews for a very long time.

 

So, I'm not sure that the non-literal thing makes the OT worse. To me, it makes it more understandable and more reflective of the Jewish culture. It is very understandable for cultures with strong identities to interpret events and their God's will in a way that is very much self-centered.

 

My personal conclusions after studying these matters is that 'God' simply represents unexplained events which seemed to favor the Jewish people in their eyes. Considering that only a few of the Jewish patriarchs could have been considered to 'know' god, it is highly likely that they had to dumb down their understanding for a very anthropomorphic-minded people.

 

In fact, it suggested by some that this is precisely what happened when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. If this is the case, then it could be said that Moses intentionally framed the Pentatuech (first 5 books of the OT) in a manner that the common people could grasp, but would also contain his own spiritual realizations. As their are two torah's in Jewish tradition, the oral and the written, one could assume here that Moses passed on an oral tradition to the rabbinic class that contained the basics to interpreting the allegorical aspects of his teaching. This would have likely included Gematria (the numerical associations of Hebrew writing & permutations of God's name), the meanings of the names of God, and other teachings which would ensure that Moses's realizations/insights were not lost to the tradition.

 

It is also interesting to consider that Moses' understanding was flavored by the Egyptian mystical tradition, though I am largely unfamiliar with this territory. I think this is what the likes of Crowley and Israel Regardie explored.

 

Anyway, lots of interesting stuff here. And lots of opinions as well. I think the main thing for me here is that without allegorical interpretation, the Jewish tradition is just the skewed perspective & history of a somewhat barbaric tribe who allegedly displayed occult powers from time to time by the power of their 'God'. Who knows what the actual case is?

 

take care all

 

_/\_

[Amanda]

 

Not1not2, I think that the Jews and the Islamic people are so similar! Yet, it seems that the Suffis were similar in OT thinking too, yet more insightful to a greater depth. Do you get that impression also? And I'm wondering how they initially evolved as separate from these others? I know the Islamic claim them as their own, however I don't think this is really the case. I think this was a move, that the Suffis allowed, for the Suffis to survive the Islamic conquering inclinations.

[not1not2]

sorry, but I'm not sure about this one. I really haven't studied the development and survival of the sufi tradition. I do know that they are considered infidels by staunch traditionalists though. And obviously there was some very progressive thought happening in the 12th & 13th century spain by both Muslims and Jews.

 

Regardless though, Rumi is awesome.

 

take care

 

_/\_

[Taaliba22]

1 ) . 50 Chapters of Bara**** ( Genesis ) . mening '' The Reconstruction '' which was revealed in 1512 B.C.E. The Book Called Genesis from the Greek word GHEN-NAY-SIS , meaning '' The Very Beginning '' Genesis , In itself mean '' Origin '' or Genealogy . In the Greek language Genesis is Genesis. ( Ghen-nay-sis ) . From GENOS , GHEN-OS, meaning Kind or Kindred . And also GENNAO . ( Ghen-nah-o ) . To Pro-Create Of A Father , But By Extension Of A Mother , To Be Delivered Of , Or To Regenerate , Conceive Or Be Born ; and the word Genealogia ( Ghen-eh-al-og-ee-ah )

And Genealogep ( Gehen-el-al-og-eh-o ) . meaning '' Tracing By Generations'' . Within Many Religious Sects The First Scroll Is Interpreted As GENESIS .

[Taaliba22]

Also , Let me point out to you that a potion of Genesis 1 ; 1 Was intenionally taken out . Most people are not informed that 6Verse of the Book of Jeremiah 4 ; 23 - 28 Were Intertionally Taken out of Genesis1 ; 1 You can see that this was Inserted into Jeremiah because if you remove Jeremiah 4 ; 23 - 28 . You will see that the text was written differently than the rest rest of Jeremiah . For Example . If You look at Jeremiah 4 ;24 , A

 

Verse inserted into Jeremiah , meaning it was not priginally there , And I Quote '' I Behold The Mountains , And , Lo , They Trembled , And All The Hills Moved Lightly . '' And look at Jeremiah 4 ; 25 And I Quote '' I Beheld The Earth , And , Lo . There Was No Man , And All The Birds Of The Heavens Fled . '' And now take a look at a normal verse of the book of Jeremiah

 

4 ; 30 And I Quote '' And When Thou Art Spoiled , What Wilt Thou Do ? Though Thou Clothest Thyself With Crimson , Though Thou Deckest Thee With Ormaments Of Gold ... All Throughout Jeremiah 4 ; 23 - 27 , You Will Find Lo . Which In Aramic Hebrew Is Hin-Nay meaning '' Lo '' . But you will not find it Throughout the other text of Jeremiah Chapter 4 Ask Yourself Why ? Whoever Did This Knew Exactly What They Were Doing ! Genesis 1 ; 2 Is Also A Duplicate Of Jeremiah 4 ; 23 . Was This A Mistake ? No ! It Was Done Intentionally .

 

 

 

If You Look Below , Both Verse Speak About The Planet Earth Being Without Form And Voild , Or DesolateAnd If You ReSearch It In The Original Aramic Hebrew Language , You Will Find That The Word To-Hoo meaning '' Empty '' . And Bo -Hoo '' Desolate , Emptiness '' Is Being Used The Exact Same Way , Stating The Exact Same Thing . Is This A Coincidence ? You Be The Judge .

Jeremaih 4; 23 ( In Aramic / Hebrew )

I Raw-aw ( look ) the Eh-rets ( earth ) Wa ( and ) , Hin-nay ( lo ) . it

Was To-hoo ( empty ) and Bo-hoo ( emptiness ) . Wa ( and ) the

Shaw-mah-yim ( heavenly skies ) , Wa ( and ) Yeen ( they ) had no

Ore ( light ) .

Genesis 1 ; 2 ( In Aramic / Hebrew )

Wa ( and ) Ha ( the ) Eh-rets ( planet earth ) had become To-Hoo

An empty place Wa ( and ) Bo-hoo ( emptiness ) Wa ( and )

Kho - shek ( darkess ) was upon the Faw-neem ( surface ) of

The Teh -home ( tiamat subterranean sea ) . Wa ( and ) Ha ( the )

Roo - Akh ( wind ) of Eloheem ( These beings ) Raw - Khaf ( moved )

Upon the Faw - neem ( surface ) of Ha ( the ) May - yeem ( two waters ) .

 

The book of Genesis was not received by Moses . Moses only received the law , The Torah . MOSES did not receive 5 Books which consisted of Genesis , Exodus , Leviticus , Number , And Deuteronomy . The so-called BOOKS OF MOSES are known as the PENTATEUCH The word PENTA means '' Five '' and TEUCH mean '' Book '' . So they say PENTATEUCH , And that means

 

The '' Five Books '' and they added MOSES . That had to happen after the translation , Because you don't find that in The Torah . Inside The Hebrew Israelite Doctrine . There is a constant reference to the word TORAH as '' The Law '' . or The Instructions '' They call it in Greek NOMMUS . '' The Law '' or Rules Producting A State Approved Of Man '' Genesis '' He received The Law for the children of Israel within that history

 

 

More In Next Post

[crazy-tiger]

For the love of Xaru... what's with all the Necroposting Copy+Paste crap??

[Robbobrob]

Tal, you ever think to ask a Jew directly what is Torah before you post nonsense?

 

From: Lisa Katz on About.com.

The Five Books of Moses (also called Chumashe Torah or Chumash from the Hebrew word for five) were given to the Jewish People at Mount Sinai during their exodus from Egypt approximately 3500 years ago. They include Genesis (Beresheet), Exodus (Shemot), Vayikra (Leviticus), Numbers (Bamidbar), and Deuteronomy (Devarim).

 

The Torah is the primary document of Judaism. Torah, which means "teaching", is God's revealed instructions to the Jewish People. It teaches Jews how to act, think and even feel about life and death.

 

The Torah contains 613 commandments (mitzvot). The Ten Commandments are considered the most important commandments of the Torah. The Torah also contains stories that teach us about God's relationship with the Jewish People.

 

There are two parts to the Torah:

1. Written Torah

2. Oral Torah

 

Written Torah

 

The Written Torah is often called the Tanakh, which stands for Torah (T), Nevi'im (N) and Ketuvim (K). The Written Torah contains:

1. Five Books of Moses (Chumashe Torah)

2. Prophets (Nevi'im)

3. Writings (Ketuvim)

 

Oral Torah

 

The Oral Torah, explanations of the Written Torah, was originally passed down verbally from generation to generation.

 

After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, it was decided the Oral Torah should be written down so it would not be forgotten. In the 2nd century C.E., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and a group of Sages compiled the Mishnah. The Mishnah is a written outline of the Oral Torah.

 

 

Just wanted to prove my amazing cut and paste skills...along with providing the source if people want to check my accuracy. So Please, Tal, be critical of your sources, because they seem to be very inaccurate on more than one occasion.