It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Previous Text It is sort of vague on that probably on purpose so as to not take the focus away from the actual act, which is the real character, this sort of smooth talking that may be the view of the Jerusalem priesthood of the seducing influence to engage in false worship in the "groves" or other natural places like caves.
Present Text "Common sense" should tell you that I was talking about the writers of the Garden story in Genesis. If I meant the writer of Romans, I would have said, "Paul".
Text My mention of "groves" is not accidental and is what I think the 'tree of knowledge' represents in the story, the problem that the Israelite authorities were constantly having trouble with, the tendency for the common people to go to private worships in the groves, which would have been seen by the temple priesthood as being "pagan". Paul never talked about the evils of worshiping in groves.
Actual biblical scholars who study the book of Genesis date it very late.
There was no Jerusalem priesthood in the era of the writers of the Garden story. The authors of the accounts of Moses were in the era of about 1273 BC to about 1100 BC and there was no Jerusalem priesthood at this time.
I wasn't even talking about that.
Till proven otherwise I will assume that the two tablets of stone were in a alphabet style and not pictures.
You haven't done so convincingly.
I have several times explained that concept so will not go there again.
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
. . . sin (which is called evil) . . .
Those things were not invented by the writers of the Bible.
Where did the understanding of sin and evil originate?
People sin without necessarily having evil intentions.
What is the difference between sin and evil?
No.
Was the God of Abraham the only Creator of our existence?
No.
Was the entire garden story a fable?
Yes.
Is there more than one god in existence?
I could, and have quite a bit on this forum.
Could you expound these questions and give reason for your belief?
Text Actual biblical scholars who study the book of Genesis date it very late. Rather than other books of the Old New Testament being dependent on it, it seems Genesis is dependent on the other books. So it is pretty late, placing it in the later kingdom era.
This comes from reading a whole pile of books on the subject so I can't hardly go back through them for quotes, at least easily or in less than a year or something, looking up all the references.
Give me a date on this "later kingdom era". What is your reference material of these biblical scholars? Who and what are their credentials?
Focus in on the second half of the quote and that will support what I was saying earlier.
Julius Wellhausen, the 19th century German scholar responsible for the classical form of the documentary hypothesis, did not attempt to date J more precisely than the monarchical period of Israel's history. In 1938 Gerhard von Rad placed J at the court of Solomon, c. 950 BCE, and argued that his purpose in writing was to provide a theological justification for the unified state created by Solomon's father, David. This was generally accepted until a crucial 1976 study by H.H. Schmid, called in English "The So-called Yahwist", demonstrated that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century. A number of current theories place J even later, in the exilic and/or post-exilic period (6th–5th centuries BCE).
en.wikipedia.org...
Are you a rabbi?
In Talmudic studies the Torah is the central theme and was the only source in original Christianity up to Hadrian (about 135 CE). All other Hebrew biblical literature is dated from Torah. By this it is just the opposite of your statement.
By "Holy books" do you mean the Bible?
It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books.
originally posted by: loremipsum
a reply to: jheated5
That right there is the reason why I did not believe in a god when my parents decided to teach me about him/it/them. It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books. How could an omnipresent omnipotent being make such mistakes, or any mistakes, for that matter?
originally posted by: loremipsum
a reply to: jheated5
That right there is the reason why I did not believe in a god when my parents decided to teach me about him/it/them. It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books. How could an omnipresent omnipotent being make such mistakes, or any mistakes, for that matter?
Because it is a binary 1s and 0s information plasma field
Jesus was quoting Genesis 18:14, using the Greek word that is here translated as "impossible" from the Septuagint.
"For nothing will be impossible with God." - Luke 1:37
Which could be read from the Greek as: "Things God gives have power".
"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.'" - Mark 10:27
[I]loremipsum[/I]There is no thank you for that. First reason for that, is frankly, that it is impossible for you to know that there is a god. No matter what you 'feel', you cannot prove it and thus there is no reason to assume it. The second reason is that thanking god for creating you is like thanking your mother for giving birth to you. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know it.
[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I] Because "GOD the Absolute Unbounded Oneness is a binary 1s and 0s information plasma field.
Loremipsum[/I] And what is this supposed to mean?