Why did God carry out modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve?

a reply to: halfoldman

Could you repost the link, it's broken.

originally posted by: neoholographic
No, I'm just showing you how you're always off topic. You say the same things over and over again no matter the thread.

Not true, I only do that in the religious threads, if it fits the topic, like the one I linked to, or yours because you bring it up. I had not made mention of it until you did.

You ridicule those who believe in God yet you're talking about some peer that may have created the universe? What do you mean by peer? Peer means equal. How did a peer from another type 0 civilization create the universe?

Did this peer use a quantum computer? What Galaxy is this peer from?

You said you believe in an afterlife. Does this peer control this afterlife?

This is just the same thing you pull on every thread where God's mentioned. You ridicule people for believing in God when you're talking about some peer that may have created the universe and you will not answer if this peer controls this afterlife you believe in.

The idea is that we are souls that also exist outside time and space who incarnated in this simulation and when we are out of the simulation, we are no better or worse than the "peer" that designed the simulation.

Just like the person(s) who created ATS are not gods, they are our peers, even if we are just users while we are here, most of us don't even have mod status.

a reply to: neoholographic

The link seems to break automatically.
See if this works.
www.seeker.com...enis-bible-scholar-1770658518.html

Here's the headline and details if the link still doesn't work:

Eve Was Created From Adam's Penis: Bible Scholar Eve was not made from one of Adam's ribs, but was instead created using a bone in his penis, a Biblical scholar has claimed causing much controversy. Continue reading → By Rossella Lorenzi Published on 12/30/2015 at 3:59 PM

My guess is there's some keyword age restriction (although there's nothing sexual or perverse about a long-standing Christian/Jewish tradition), but if you copy and paste the above headline into Google search the article should appear.

originally posted by: MPoling
This debate will go on endlessly. The Bible is not something you read once or just skim over. Scripture explains Scripture and it takes decades of reading and studying to even start to understand. I personally love the Bible and in the crazy world its the only thing that has been consistent and truthful.

This is true.

I was just saying this. The Bible is consistent from start to finish.

a reply to: daskakik

You said:

The idea is that we are souls that also exist outside time and space who incarnated in this simulation and when we are out of the simulation, we are no better or worse than the "peer" that designed the simulation.

What? You have the nerve to ridicule people who believe in God?

Who created these souls? Who created the simulation, the disembodied souls?

If the peer created the universe, was the peer a disembodied soul? Did the peer create the souls? What is this peer made of? Does this peer control the afterlife you believe in?

originally posted by: neoholographic
What? You have the nerve to ridicule people who believe in God?

I have not ridiculed anyone because of their belief in god. I do question the lengths some will go to in order to maintain their belief in something that is just a collection of myths.

ETA: A collection that was redacted, possibly with parts rewritten, by the church (men) a long time ago to control people.

Who created these souls? Who created the simulation, the disembodied souls?

If the peer created the universe, was the peer a disembodied soul? Did the peer create the souls? What is this peer made of? Does this peer control the afterlife you believe in?

Like I said, it is just an idea, a possibility.

I don't have the answers to your questions. That is why I never answer them.

a reply to: halfoldman

Baculum suggest reproduction, Suggesting that eve evolved from DNA. Which equates directly with science. Genesis 1 and 2 were written by different authors. The first account of Adam and Eve may represent our male (spiritual) and female (material) natures. Adam made in image of God is not part of our material universe so is unknown to science. Eve however, being part of our material universe, evolved over time. The serpent that could only seduce Eve is obviously our minds ego that chases material bliss. The tree likely represents our spinal chord that allows us to achieve sensations (apple etc) in the material universe....

Luke 17:21 ... the kingdom of God is within you.

This understanding tells us that evil itself is part of our material (aka female) nature. To overcome evil we have to bring forward the male aspect within,

Added... In Gospel of Thomas Jesus may have used male/female in a play of words....

"Simon Peter said to them, Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life. Jesus said, Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven".

a reply to: glend

The first account of Adam and Eve may represent our male (spiritual) and female (material) natures. Adam made in image of God is not part of our material universe so is unknown to science.

What about Adam being made from the dust of the earth?

Wouldn't dust of the earth be considered a part of our material universe?

Now as far as spiritual that could have come from the breath of life.

Something I think about from time to time on dust of the earth, mud puddles/ pools of amino acid and proteins.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

As I stated earlier, Genesis is written by different authors giving two different creation accounts...

Genesis 1 "God created man in his own image"
Genesis 2 “Formed man of the dust of the ground"

The symbolism of male and female in Genesis 1 wasnt recognized by the author of Genesis 2. If you read both accounts literally it also suggests by negation that God is made of dust.

So the almighty God who created Adam from the dust in the ground…needs to create Eve using modern day surgery!…

Something doesn't feel right here imo...

- JC

a reply to: glend

As I stated earlier, Genesis is written by different authors giving two different creation accounts...

Yes i know some say that, others say Genesis 2 is a continuation of Gen 1 written by the same.

One reason i've heard given is that Gen 2:1-2 says,

Genesis 2 King James Version

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Clearly this is after the creation/beginning naritive. What you are suggesting is that the author started from the day he rested with out giving any order into what was created at what time.

Then it goes on to explain in the rest of Gen 2 how plants, herbs grew without rain, how tree and animals came from the of the ground, how and where he planted the garden, how he made woman,and so forth, basically how things worked out.

If you read both accounts literally it also suggests by negation that God is made of dust.

but that really depends on what the Hebrew word used for image was and how someone translated it as a noun or transitive verb, a image could be a likeness and not necessarily made of the same thing. you can make a image of a man out of anything wood steel, plastic, soap, what have you. it doesn't have to be a exact copy. just resemble the original.

this is just one example,breaks down each word. there are other explanations/ views.

Genesis 1:27 - And God created man in his own image God
(Strong's #430) The Hebrew word אלהים (elohiym) is the plural form of אלוה (elo'ah) literally meaning "strength" and "power" and is usually translated as God or god. The ים (iym) is the masculine plural suffix and when added to this word becomes אלהים (elohiym) which is usually translated as gods or judges as they are strong and powerful ones. But it is also commonly used for God as a name because he is "thee" strong and powerful one.

Create (Strong's #1254) The Hebrew word behind created is the Hebrew verb ברא (bara). The idea of "creating" is an abstract thought that is foreign to Hebrew thought. The concrete understanding behind this word can be seen in 1 Samuel 2:29, "Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?" In this passage is the word "fattening" which is the same Hebrew verb ברא (bara). By extension this word also means to "fill up."

Man (Strong's #120) The Hebrew word for man is אדם (adam) and is also the name of the first man.

Image (Strong's #6754) The word צלם (tselem) is literally a shadow which is the outline or representation of the original. And Elohiym, the Great Powerful One, filled the man with a representation of himself.

I didn't include the commentary of the author that's his view. here's the link,
The Image of God

So why did the baculum disappear?

The Australopithecus football coach:

"Now listen guys, if you don't stop acting stupid and breaking your baculums, eventually they're going to disappear ...".

Yeah right, like our baculums are ever going to disappear.
Sorry ass coach, what an old fart, he's almost 18 - what does he know about being young?
Let's eat some fermented Marula fruit and go Jackass all over the Savannah!

What about Lilith, being Adam first mate and her being canon or not it, while did take a woman to bring down Samson an the rest of race of men to suffer the curse of the first sin.

a reply to: halfoldman
Not all mammals have one.

According to wiki great apes have one that is insignificant, 1-2cm long.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Good points.

There's 2 Creation accounts. I wrote about it in this thread.

Were there 2 stories of Creation in Genesis?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're right, image is different than likeness. Image means:

tselem, tseh'-lem; from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol:—image, vain shew.

So on the 6th day, man was made in his image. I believe that primitive hominids were changed at this point. It says, God made man in His image and after His likeness. It then says:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In this verse, man is only Created in the image of God. Image is a represenative figure. Likeness is more concrete.

dᵉmûwth, dem-ooth'; from H1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like:—fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Adam was made in His likeness.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Adam was just the likeness and man Created on the 6th day was just the image.

Look what Cain said when he was expelled from the Eden in Chapter 4.

Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Who was Cain worried about? The people who lived outside of Eden, people who were the (image).

This also lines up whith what we know about hominids. We seem to be finding different hominids and they expect the list to grow. Here's more from a Darwinist source:

In the 8 million years or so since the earliest ancestors of humans diverged from the apes, at least a dozen humanlike species, called hominids, have lived on Earth. And this list is getting longer. As scientists discover new fossils, the hominid family tree grows new branches.

www.pbs.org...

Because of genetic engineering, I think they will find more hominids.

Hominids also remained isolated from each other for thousands of years. This is how you get so many distinct lines of hominids. If you have 2 groups of hominids that remain isolated in their environments for thousands of years, evolution has time to make obvious changes to each group of hominid.

A group came out of Africa that were different. They wanted to explore the world. They began absorbing other hominids and some hominids died out. This just left us, modern humans. We traveled between each other in shorter and shorter amounts of time which doesn't give evolution time to make distinct changes between different groups like with earlier hominids.

This quickly led to modern civilization which also destroys a natural interpretation of evolution which I talked about in another thread.

Sumerians show why a natural interpretation of evolution is false
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So Adam was the first human being made in the likeness of God. Adam & Eve also lived in the Garden of Eden. They were not the first hominids that were the image of God. The Bible clearly separates image from likeness.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Good point Bernnie. From Genesis 1 to 2.3 the hebrew word for God is "Elohîm". From Gen 2:4 to 3.24 the hebrew word for God is "YHWH Elohim' that is translated to Lord God. So it does appear that the first Genesis account does seem to finish at the point you mention that being the blessing of the seventh day.

Perhaps its not the word "image" that is important, But the fact that scripture says "God created man IN his own image". Not "FROM his image". The real message being there is no-where within that image that we can point to God. Our spiritual nature and that of the Father are one. (aka John 10:30 - I and the Father are one). God in Exodus is described as "I AM THAT I AM". The seat of pure awareness that exist in all living beings may not be a function of our mind.

originally posted by: glend
(aka John 10:30 - I and the Father are one)

That was Jesus talking, not really the average person, if we go by the bible.

Honestly, there is only one message, humans feel special. They did so thousands of years ago so they started telling stories about how special they were and people like the OP want to carry on the tradition.

The seat of pure awareness that exist in all living beings may not be a function of our mind.

The question then becomes, IMHO, what good does the bible do, supposing it holds some secrets, if our minds can't grasp it?

a reply to: daskakik
It all points to the seeing.
Seeing is prior to mind.....mind appears in the seeing.
Love is veiled because of wordings and interpretations.......lost in stories.

The peace that passes all understanding.

Philippians 4:6
And the peace that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.”

Let's look at existence itself......when and where can that occur?

Prior to any thing....any concept......any idea, there is choiceless seeing and hearing ...... direct conscious contact with what is.

a reply to: daskakik

When Jesus said "I" and "I AM" many presume he was describing his persona. I believe Jesus was explaining the nature of our spiritual essence. Which Paul further explained "there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; One Lord, one faith, one baptism. one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all".

Perhaps that ONE has many eyes (I AM THAT I AM) which he shares with us so we can experience life through and with Him.

The bible tells us that we are more than body and mind. Without that good news would we seek a greater truth beyond our material existance.

"I am in love with no other than myself, and my very separation is my union... I am my beloved and my lover; I am my knight and my maiden"
Ibn 'Arabi.