It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


wierd stuff in genesis.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:22 PM
As an independant Baptist, I've been taught that the idea of messia goes like this: before Jesus the Jews sacraficed in the temple once a year to cover they're sins for another year with the understanding that the Christ would come to become the final sacrafice. Messiah was to be the physical incarnation of God (the trinity, the collective), which is exactly what Christianity is soley based on. This comes from the book of Isaiah, as well as parts of Eziekiel.

However, if you want physical proof of a Christ figure in the old testament, check out Daniel chapter 3 (mainly 3:25). I suggest you read all of the chapter before you make a decission.

There are also schools inside Christianity that believe the angel Jacob wrestles with in Genesis is actually Christ.

Decide for your self, for Jesus' only message was "believe in me."

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by phantompatriot
well i was reading genesis and in 1:26 it says that god says "let us create man in our image" who is us? i mean its strange to have one god that says something like that.

I think that you should clarify who you want to answer your questions.

The answering posts to this thread appear to be from many different sources.

There were answers from folks who don't believe in God or the Bible as the written Word of God.

These people misquote from the Bible and treat it as a book of myths and stories. Some have attempted to go outside of the Bible to answer using their sources for history and to bring in other gods.

It would seem to me that you would need a Christian to answer your question.

All Christians believe that the Bible is the written Word of God.

Of course, different Christians interpret the Word in different ways.
Other Christians have answered your question here. And, even taking a little different words or interpretations the meaning is the same.

Here is how I would answer your question. I am a Catholic Christian and believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
The New American Bible
Saint Joseph Edition

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

John 1: 14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:10 AM
Step back consider this then engage in a lot of research on the myths I outline. As well, deprogram from your mind of all that you have been told about the Bible stories. Read your Genesis and research in the context as though you know nothing of Egyptian, Jewish or Christian religion.

Of the Gods, One God.

The Egyptian Ogdoad and generally accepted creation myth:
Out of Chaos that were the eight, arose the following exemplified by; Water (Nun and Nunet); Hidenness (Amun and Amunness); Darkness (Kek and Kauket) Infinity (Heh and Hauhet).

The story continues that Atum, the sun God was given existence by Nun, or created himself. Nevertheless, Atum heads the Ennead, or nine, where he divided himself and created;

Moisture (tefnut) and Air (Shu), and they in turn created Heaven (Nut) Earth (Geb), their offspring being;

Osiris, Seth, Isis and Nephthys. Two men, two women. Seth was often depicted as an animal of some sort with a forked tail; is associated with reviled beasts such as pigs; killed his brother Osiris, whose form is represented as a human carrying the crook and flail and associated with crops.

Repeating the above but substituting the names of the Egyptian Gods for their meaning, and inserting the genesis creation in Italics, we can match the two stories, where Genesis begins its transformation of the Egyptian Gods from the ethereal gods into human form:

he Ogdoad as it relates to genesis:
Infinity : In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form

Hiddenness :And void.

Darkness :and darkness…

Water :was upon the face of the deep

The head of the Ogdoad was:
Atum- the Sun God :let there be light…

Atum then divided into air which is, SHU- transparency and moisture: TEFNUT opague :And God divided the light from the darkness (note not dark, but darkness.)

Heaven (Nut) :let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…and called it Heaven

Earth (Geb) :let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear…And god called the dry land Earth…

Their children in turn in genesis were represented as Gods still bringing forward the basics of earth:

Osiris :Let the earth bring forth grass…

It is here we come to the Genesis two creation theories that conflict. God has already created light, and as we know, there is no light without those of the stars/suns. He now creates what we presume to be moonlight and sunlight, without rotation however, we would experience same only on one side of the planet. And the chain of events suggests he made our sun and moon first and then all the others in the universe, however, Gen.1:18 claims he is dividing the light from the darkness, which he has already done in Gen. 1:3. We know that Isis is represented by a sun disk on her headdress, but of Nephthys, very little except that she always appeared opposite Isis. So I exercise poetic licence here and apply the Egyptian Gods creating the earthly necessities or realms:

Isis :And God said let there be lights in the firmament…the greater light to rule the day…

Nephthys :the lesser light to rule the night…

Seth :…and God created whales and every living creature.

This covers all of creation up to Gen.1:25. Where the cosmos, the earth, and all within it is represented by Egyptians in name. Now from there, quoting Genesis first, the Godly manifestations of these characteristics of our earth need representation on earth:

And God said,… :Atum, tefnut and Shu. Where Atum divided himself to create both of these sexes.

let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea… In the image of God he created he him; male and female created he them :
Atum, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Seth. The Godly manifestation to rule over their respective realms as created, and told as per the Egyptian story of Atum. The sun (Gen. 1:15) flora (Gen1:11), day (Gen.1:18), night (Gen 1;18) fauna, (Gen. 1:20)

…I have given you every herb bearing seed…and to every beast of the earth,… :
Of Osiris and of Seth (Gen.1:29:30)

At this point, the creation story seems to suggest a different creation myth. In Genesis 2:5, it appears that the flora was created but there was no "man to till the ground," where previously it appears that man already was created and granted the fruits of the earth, albeit for sustenance, while 2:19 has God creating the animals, which were already created in 1:24:25. Logically then, Genesis makes sense, as thus far, we have creation only up to the Godly manifestations, and 2:5 onwards has not yet happened.

As best as can be dated, somewhere between the 16th and 14th centuries BCE or the 18th dynasty of the Egyptian Kings, Atum’s pre-eminent sun god and divine status was temporarily replaced by Aten, usurped in fact by this God elevated above all others and worshipped in an almost monotheistic manner. Thus while we also have two Egyptian creation myths they are all identical except in one way, the God kings; Atum and his offspring, have been relegated to mortal status in the second story.

At the head of both the Ogdoad and Ennead was Ptah, the supreme deity who by just speaking "the word", created the Ogdoad, likewise we have at the head of Genesis; God.

The two supposedly conflicting stories within Genesis may have been as a result of an error in redaction by the Jewish scribes, but I do not believe this to be so. It seems more likely that it was a chronology to the Jews to recount the earliest tradition of creation as well as record the move to their monotheism; a chronology they would well be aware of at the time Moses was striving to remove idolatry. The inclusion then, although appearing to us a mystery, would have been a familiar tale to the Israelites during this struggle. The Egyptian creator is represented as "God" in Genesis chapters 1 through 2:4. which if applied in context should be Gen.1 verses 32, 33 and 34, where Gen.2:4 should be 2:1, as it is here that the usurper has been given a more hierarchal term; "Lord God," despite the varied interpretations of the sudden language change for identifying God. From there, the Jewish God’s "generations" take over and literally rewrites the story placing all of these afore mentioned Gods in mortal context.

HaShem G-D in the Hebrew genesis account, is translated for us as; Lord God, and is taken to mean; The Name, where the name refers to the one that is forbidden to be spoken. In other words, the Aten god.

And that effectively takes us up to Gen.2:8, the other three chapters are equally as fascinating, relate directly to 1 and 2, and filled with the Egyptian saga of the gods.

Something very important here:

On the doorjambs to the tombs of the elite at el-Armana, are found prayers to Aten. Deuteronomy 11:20; "and thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates." The mezuzah! which says in The Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One."

el-Armana is where Egypt's move to a one-god religion at the same time of the story of Exodus was centred.

[edit on 3/2/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by phantompatriot
well i was reading genesis and in 1:26 it says that god says "let us create man in our image" who is us? i mean its strange to have one god that says something like that.

Wouldn't this be just a case of making much ado about nothing? That "we" or "us" is the presumptuous, pompous, insolent first person singular that popes and royalty use, and also the gods themselves, it seems. Remember Queen Victoria's "We are not amused". Occasionally lesser public figures put on airs and refer to themselves as "we". A famous concert-hall singer, maybe Marian Anderson, once went to India and while talking to a yogui kept saying "we" instead of "I". The yogui was puzzled at this and asked why she did it, and, finding herself confronted all of a sudden with her own arrogance, she went into a long, tortuous explanation as she tried to justify herself: that she considered herself to be just a part of humankind as a whole, that everywhere she went she always spoke on behalf of all her fellow human beings, that she was a universal spokesman, a citizen of the world, a good-will ambassador at large, etc. etc. etc.

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Washball

(...) before Jesus the Jews sacraficed in the temple once a year to cover they're sins for another year with the understanding that the Christ would come to become the final sacrafice. (...)

That had to do with the concept of a "scapegoat". At the end of the year every village carried out a ritual in which all of the sins its inhabitants had incurred in the course of the year were cast upon a goat, and then the goat was taken out into the desert and thrown off a cliff, after which it was understood that the village had been thoroughly cleansed of its sins.

You tell the story the other way around: the animal was sacrificed at the beginning of the year in order to "cover" the sins that would be committed during the year. In this version the future sins are conveniently taken care of even before the people do the sinning.

The illogical idea that someone else can atone for one's sins --illogical because it is morally absurd to believe that others can take on the burden of the responsibility for one's own actions-- was a logical extension of the ritual of the scapegoat. The animal was replaced by a human being with godlike qualities who was permanently burdened with the sins of all mankind.

If you don't agree with this point of dogma then the conclusion you will arrive at is this: that only the goats benefitted.

Moreover, if you take the old Roman legal principle followed when investigating a crime and ask "Cui bono?", or "Who benefits?" --"the legal principle that somebody who would gain something from a particular action or event is probably responsible for it" (MSN Encarta)-- where does that leave the goats, or, more to the point, their owners?

No offense is meant here. It is a theological inquiry driven as close as possible to its ultimate bounds and repercussions, yet the ramifications remain uncertain, at least from the point of view of the average layman in the street.

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:08 PM
No offense taken.

My faith (understand we are talking MY faith, there are many, many things in modern Christian dogma that I totally disagree with) is based on the ideal that Jesus lived the "perfect" life-sin free. In order for a person to believe this, that person must believe in orginal sin. Once that person understands and agrees and believes in the concept of original sin, the idea of a Christ who can accept the burden of the sins of the world through a "sin free" life is not illogical.

It's all a point of view. Believe me, I know. I'm married to an agnostic who completely dismisses original sin as an elitist ideal. (In five years of marriage, we've had many a deep discussion over this concept).

As for the goat thing, I would love to see some kind of written documentation on this. Much of what I was talking about comes from the Torah, and I will go back and re-read those passages as it has been several years since I last studied the subject of the Judeaic sacrafice rituals.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[edit on 3/3/2005 by Washball]

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:09 AM
I'm sorry, Washball, that is something I read somewhere a long, long time ago. However, I still have with me my trusty, old Webster's New School and Office Dictionary (1946!), bought in some used-book fair for the price of a candy bar. This is how it defines the term "scapegoat": "in ancient Hebrew ritual, a goat, turned loose in the desert, upon which the sins of the people had been symbolically transferred; hence, one who bears the blame for others". That's about all I can offer by way of documentation for now.

N.B. On the short message about the use of the we/us I made an obvious mistake: it's supposed to be "first person plural", not "ditto singular".

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:33 AM

Originally posted by phantompatriot
well i was reading genesis and in 1:26 it says that god says "let us create man in our image" who is us? i mean its strange to have one god that says something like that.

Lets suppose that the bible can predict the future as Prophecies and instead of "Lets us created man in our image" it really saids: "Let United States" create man in our image"

Why not with all that nano tech and cloning buissness going on, who knows?

Just a opened minded suggestion, so don't stone me!!!!!!

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Macrento

I'm sorry, Washball, that is something I read somewhere a long, long time ago. However, I still have with me my trusty, old Webster's New School and Office Dictionary (1946!), bought in some used-book fair for the price of a candy bar. This is how it defines the term "scapegoat": "in ancient Hebrew ritual, a goat, turned loose in the desert, upon which the sins of the people had been symbolically transferred; hence, one who bears the blame for others".

I will search more on the subject, and get back to you on what I might find. As for what I was talking about, the idea comes from the Passover rituals where the Jews would bring a sheep or dove to the Temple for the Priest to sacrafice over the Ark of the Covenant. If you want, I can send you the actual passages, but I must warn you, once you move through the Exodus, the Torah gets really boring really fast.

[edit on 3/4/2005 by Washball]

[edit on 3/4/2005 by Washball]

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:12 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Christians believe "God the Son" existed before he was made flesh as Jesus.

I believe it is a reference to the holy trinity. But it could just also be a sort of "royal we"

As God has a Sprit, a soul and Flesh, We also in his likeness are Flesh, Spirt and Soul..

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Blueangel7
There really is some weird stuff in Genesis! The scripture that I've always wondered about is this one:

Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I wonder what GIANTS he is talking about. Hmmmmm...........

When Satan tried to take over Heaven, He was cast out to the earth and a third of the Angles also were cast out to never be in heaven again. Some of the Angles (Demons) came to earth to be with Human women, It is said that they were Giants and they stood about 10 ft tall.
After Cane Killed Able (His Brother) he was sent into the desert to live his life out BUT He got Married and Had children /// WHO WAS HIS WIFE ????
Were it says that God created Man and Woman, Its Fact But The Creation of Adam and Eva,,,, This was the start of Jesus's Blood line and The Bloodline of Iseral (The Jews)...

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:47 PM
Nobody is right or wrong, you just have to keep on searching, untill you find what is right for you, as for the bible!

Good luck in your searching

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:09 AM
To yekway,

You are lost, search if you must. Eat drink and be merry for tommorrow you die. Or you could repent. Lets see if I can calculate the probability of such.
Oops I need knowledge of scientific notation. Was that the decimal point moves to the right or to the left? 10^9 you say?

Can you humble yourself? No? sorry I waisted my time.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:14 AM
To Regan, no Im not lost but found.

Thanks for the simple post!

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:46 AM

I forgot to comment on that link you point out between the "original sin" dogma and the one about someone dying for one's sins. Original sin seems like the classical case of a belief foisted on a people by a ruling élite in order to control them. If you believe in original sin then there can be no "salvation" for your soul unless you belong to a group whose caste of priests will save you from that curse by baptizing you. That's why the Catholic Church has always claimed that "outside the Church there is no salvation". This means, inevitably, that there is only one "true" religion. It is an extremely parochial outlook on life.

Making things even worse is the fact that most of the New Testament is possibly corrupt and does not agree with the original teachings of Jesus. Many books, the so-called Apocrypha, were deleted. Christianity has been hopelessly distorted.

For example, if you read the documents of the Church councils and the works of the Church Fathers you will realize that reincarnation was a belief held by the early Christians. There is a passage in the New Testament where someone says that a certain prophet, maybe Elias (Elijah), has returned but that nobody has reckognized him, meaning that he has reincarnated as John the Baptist.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:19 PM
Here's the scripture for the Elias (Elijah) quote. There's also mention of Elijah and Moses appearing before Jesus in Matthew 17, and there is a quote in this chapter that can be intrepreted as "proof" that John was Elijah re-incarnated, but there again, it's personal intrepretation. Here's the passage from the Gospel of John where John the Baptist is asked straight out if he is Elijah, and his answer:

John 1:21

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

John 1:23

He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

As for the other part of your post, if you truley study what Jesus preaches in the gospels, you might find that he wasn't trying to advocate a religion, instead he was trying to bring an individual relationship back people who had become dependant apon preists and and the Temple.

Also: I am in complete agreement that the New Testamnet has been corrupted from the standpoint that the Disciples made something that was meant to be taken as a personal relationship, and made it communal.

By the way, I'm not Catholic, so I can't really make any rebutles for that part, however, I can tell you that Baptism is not a requirement of Salvation, rather a symbolic jesture that you are removing the shell of the old sin to accept the new life in Jesus. This is one of the Protestant ideals (I was raised an Independant Baptist).

Religion is a means of war and control. Salvation is not. It's a choice, and what I meant with the original sin statement was that Salvation cannot truely be realized if you cannot accept the ideal of original sin. It would be like believing in Democracy without voting for anything. They go hand in hand, so to speak. It's part of the theology.

The argument isn't whether there is one true Religion, rather can the world be convinced that all religions are wrong. T.S. Elliot said it best: "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:30 PM
"And the angels of the lord looked down upon the earth and they saw the daughters of man, And they saw the daughters of man were beutfull ,And the angels of the lord took wifes of the daughters of man,And had children from the daughters of man." thats true they did, but it was the elohim who came down and mated with the human females and from that homo sapien sapien was created...

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:49 PM
let US create.......... comes from the holy Trinity. Trinity means the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and separate. Catholics believe that God exists and knows both the past, present and future and God's almighty power extends beyond imagination and technically all things are possible.

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:25 AM

As you can see for yourself, regardless of who John the Baptist was a reincarnation of, the passage that you quote here indicates beyond all possible doubt that reincarnation was a common belief in those times in the Middle East, since John is asked matter-of-factly whether or not he was the prophet Elias, which makes no sense at all unless reincarnation was a fact of life for everybody there. This single passage is all one needs to burn the heaps of deadwood piling up every day on the thread about reincarnation and the Bible started by Iasion.

You seem to be an expert and I would suggest you start a thread on the subject of original sin, salvation, sacrifices and the Torah.

Edited to say something to COWman:

The use of that "us" and its possible allusion to the Trinity has been discussed in a rather scholarly manner from the very beginning of the present thread, in a way that is far beyond my amateurish efforts, but it seems like you ought to read or re-read carefully the entire thread.

However, unless one comes to terms with the racist-ish frame of mind there is little chance that he will ever grasp the matter. You see, it involves a people that invented monotheism when they were barbaric or semi-ditto, then they foisted their barbaric beliefs on an even more barbaric people far to the west of east (middle), then the latter evolved social-wise but continued to worship their brutal, tribal, jealous god, who was said to have fathered a son in the midst of the former, a people that the latter eventually described as "sub-human".

The gist of the matter is this: Would you offer up for sacrifice your own god, even if that god asked you to do so, telling you that it was for the good of all humankind, or would you turn your back on that god and refuse, even if you knew it meant you would have to drag your heinous sins around for all Eternity, in a limbo of lost souls (cp. the Bermuda Triangle and the Philadelphia Experiment), or would you discard altogether the notion that you are surrounded by invisible worlds and go atheist, or pretend to do so ???

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Macrento]

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:10 AM
Thanks for the compliment, I will keep the thread idea in mind when I can come up with a really good question. I think the thing I fear about starting a thread is the overwhelming urge by some here to do nothing but insult you rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue such as you and I have had.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in