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.

 

Original Sin

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

The Bible says her firstborn was concieved and delivered after the expulsion from the Garden (remember the tale of Cain and Abel?)


So, would that imply that there were sexual relations prior to the ejection form the Garden of Eden or just that it wasn't reproductive at that point?




posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Annoyed
 


Well when someone has children .. do they not have to finally make up their minds on a lot of subjects? .. like this is now GOOD and this is now BAD ... for MY child.... ?

and is having children (for some people) not a selfish way to keep their blood-line alive? ..



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Interestingly, the Jews (authors of the Old Testament) don't believe in Original Sin. The concept is apparently introduced into Christianity in the writings of Paul:
www.jewsforjudaism.com...



Hm, that is interesting. I thought the Torah was basically The Old Testament? If so, and the situation is discussed in Genesis, why would they not believe it to be so? Unless the part about Jesus purifying man of what is referred to as the Original Sin, meaning he would obviously play an important part in that scenario, in order to deny the Holiness of Jesus, it would be also necessary to deny what is referred to as the Original Sin?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Tangent topic:

So, somewhere there should be, in somewhat close vicinity, at least the remains of two trees that are like no other on Earth? A petrified Tree of Life and a petrified Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? (I assume they'd be petrified by now, perhaps not!)


Sorry, typos.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Annoyed]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annoyed
Tangent topic:

So, somewhere there should be, in somewhat close vicinity, at least the remains of two trees that are like no other on Earth? A petrified Tree of Life and a petrified Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? (I assume they'd be petrified by now, perhaps not!)


Sorry, typos.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Annoyed]


Uh.. well....... not exactly.. I suppose if you want to take everything literally.

But metaphorically speaking, it could be a number of things, even the way in which we arrange our neurons, or the way they fire or are constructed.. it could mean something simple.. it could mean a million things within certain contexts.. but I highly doubt they are literal trees.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PuRe EnErGy
 


Well, as previously stated, they don't have to be literaly trees at all. They could represent the willingness, desire and final consummation of the first act of sin by man. The tree of life could represent eternal life without sin, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil would represent the choice to sin or not to sin. Hope that makes sense. By the way, I'm not saying I believe in the literal interpretation at all. I think there may even be a literal and allegorical meaning. I definitely do not believe in the 7 literal day creation period. I believe the 7 days are 7 periods of time...time that we probably are unable to measure completely at this time.

Of course, this is just my thoughts, and Marg, I am certainly NOT peddling it to you. I am quite uncertain myself.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't know why people have to think that the tree of knowlege of good and bad in the garden of eden was something more than a literal tree.

It was spoken of as being "in the garden", it was spoken of in relation to other trees. Its fruit was real....Eve said that it was good for food.

Adam & Eve were described as "eating" the fruit.

Some think that it was some kind of knowlege. But that is not reasonable,
Adam & Eve both had plenty of knowlege "before" they ate the fruit.

God had brought the animals to Adam for him to name. This would have required indepth knowledge of their habits and characteristics. He would have been aware of the natural cycles of life and death, as well as reproduction, as he witnessed the death of plants, animals and even insects.

He knew what right & wrong was, because he had been instructed by God, the Creator, HE alone has the right to set the standards for his creation.
So when he was told that the punishment for disobedience was death, Adam & Eve had complete understanding.

God had not deprived Adam & Eve of anything they needed. His instructions were clear and simple.

The sin that they committed was eating the fruit, but this had a much deeper significance. What Adam & Eve were doing was rejecting Gods clear standards

A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible puts it this way:

“It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence . . . The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty.”


The tree of the knowledge of good and bad” symbolized God’s prerogative to set the standards for man as to what is approved or what is condemned. By refusing to obey God’s law, man was calling into question God’s very right to rule over him.

This was a challenge to Gods authority, His soverignty, His right to rule had been called into question. God wisely answered that challenge by allowing man to rule himself, to self govern, the results down through history have been disaterous and have proven tru the scripture at:
(Ecclesiastes 8:9-10)

9 All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.










[edit on 18-3-2008 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 



You make a very interesting point. By eating of the Tree, they were sort of saying I can decide what is good and what is evil, I don't need you to tell me ...

And that God therefore gave them the choice ... Free Will.

Thank you for yet more food for thought.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annoyed
 


My understanding is that God had already created them with free will. That is why they had the choice to obey and avoid the tree, or disobey and eat the fruit.


Free will allowed them to choose two separate courses of action; ie.....Be loyal to God and trust that He knows best , or rebel and refuse to recognize His position as Sovereign.

Adam & Eve's decision to disobey meant that they could no longer have the prospect of bearing perfect offspring. They had become sinners and all their offspring would be born with moral. spiritual & physical, flaws.

Instead of the prospect of everlasting life, death would begin to rule as king.

(Romans 5:17)


17 For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I am in total agreement with your assessment Sparky. That's what I meant when I said it could be taken both literally AND alleghorically. Very well said.


I think most significant thoughts in the Bible have both literal and alleghorical meanings. It takes much study to understand both. And a little help never hurt anyone.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


That's exactly where the thought led! Thanks again, Sparky63, you've been very helpful, as has everyone here.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker

I am in total agreement with your assessment Sparky. That's what I meant when I said it could be taken both literally AND alleghorically. Very well said.


I think most significant thoughts in the Bible have both literal and alleghorical meanings. It takes much study to understand both. And a little help never hurt anyone.


I agree with what you are saying, I have always felt the Bible has both literal and allegorical meanings, as well. In fact, that's what was taught, but it seems that many feel everything about the Bible is literal only.

Thank you, too, idle_rocker!



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
My reconing is fuzzy at best but i believe cain was cast out of the garden after killing his brother an there is a long list of his desendants,meaning the planet was populated before adam and eve.


Many writings refer to the grape vines to illistrate the wellbeing or decline of gods people, so the tree of knowledge,life had meanings that cannot be taken literally.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mule skinner
 


Eve conceived & gave birth to Cain after she was cst out of the Garden along with Adam.

Cain killed his brother, but there is nothing to indicate how old he was when this happened.

Adam & Eve had other sons and daughters that were not named in the Bible.
(Genesis 5:4)

4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. . .



Cain evidently took one of his sisters or perhaps even a neice as a wife. She went with him when he fled to the land of Nod and later bore his children.
His descendants are listed in part and include men who distinguished themselves in nomadic stock raising, the playing of musical instruments, and the forging of metal tools as well as those who were known for their practice of polygamy and their violence. (Ge 4:17-24)




[edit on 19-3-2008 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by theendisnear69
 


He wants us to choose him freely? Does it bother Him then that millions are doing exactly as he wants only because the has threatened them with eternal suffering if they don't?
So the woman who submits to the rapist because she does not want to be beaten or killed is choosing freely?
As long as the threat of hell exist there can be no real freedom for Christians



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jabawaki
 


What about those who only conform to society's rules out of fear of jail or death?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jabawaki
 



Freedom is relative is it not?. If we choose a harmful course of conduct that is damaging to ourselves we will have to pay the consequences.

Thats what personal responsibility is all about. Freedom to choose does not mean freedom from consequences.

You can choose to ignore gravity and step off a cliff, not a wise decision. The consequences can be grave....get it...grave.


The thing is that God is not asking people to do anything harmful, he is not denying them anything they need, He is asking them to make the wise decision to serve him according to His standards. AS the creator, does He not have the right ot do so?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Im just jumping in at the end I dont know what conclusions you are all at yet but heres my thoughts.

Gen 3:13

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

[From 'beguiled' we can also get morally seduced and sexual implications]


14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

[So what form was this serpent in? a snake as we know of today? a talking snake? if yes then what was his punishment? cause all it ever does is go on its belly anyway so what was its curse?

Did it have legs? was it a reptile / dragon type thing or a humanid? if Gods punishment was removing his legs then I'd understand a little. Im sure evolution of reptiles and snakes has something interesting to say. Surely the only talking serpents must be humanid type beings? at least they are more likely believable than a snake. Either that or Eve ate some psychedelic fruit that opened her eyes and the snake was talking in her mind. lol

To say that he will go on his belly all his life as punnishment implies 2 things to me for now, 1. he may have had legs, and 2. if he was just a snake then he could have became more than a snake, if he didnt get himself punished, an evolution in other words. But either way the snake didnt care cause he wanted to mess up Gods seed? and obviously to do that he would have to approach Eve.. why would he approach Adam, being a male? men dont have kids, at least not today]


15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Ok so in verse 15 God is 'still talking to the serpent' I first thought he was talking to Adam and Eve. God is saying there will be hatred between Eves/Adams/Gods seed and the serpents? not between Man and woman.

The fruit was knowledge and sex, we all know sex is a major issue of world joy n pain. She had sex with a lizard (that pissed man off!) and she isnt the only one, according to pictures and statues around the world, the Naga and Nagini? half human half snake thing.



Anyway after that original sin with the serpent, she then 'gave Adam some of the fruit!' meaning she had sex with him -second.. and she gave birth to fraternal twins, one from the serpent and one from Adam/ God - pure line. So we got 2 bloodlines, and the weeds in the garden parable by Jesus could be about those, the mix up of seed.. aswel as other things in life that applies to.


fraternal twins - Twins that derive from separately fertilized ova and that have different genetic makeup. They may be of the same or opposite sex.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary


Cain was of the serpent and he killed Abel remember.. enmity.

So... Isnt this all possible? It makes SENSE unlike the old version.

The simple fact that women have been dominated all this time by men rests on this issue in the garden. I think maybe distorted to suit certain people in control, whom made God into a man and at the same time made women worship man and be subordinate. And whatever way we make sense of it I'm still dubious of what to accept with this book

Theres still more strongs definitions to pull up, like Elohiym is the word for God and its plural
so when God says let US make man in OUR image.. the posssibility of him being with some 'brothers' isnt far fetched. Even the serpent said 'you will become as GodS'. And God makes it known all the time there are others beside him and that he is the only one we should worship.

Peace..



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
You are exactly correct.....and so here we are.



reply to post by rexpop
 



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join