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.

 

Adam and Eve…literal or allegorical?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

We may be thinking along the same lines- I'm not sure.

You focus on the choice of evil.

The thought in my mind was awareness of evil, as a necessary preliminary to choosing it.
And that knowing there is a difference between good and evil necessarily involves awareness of evil, which introduces it into the mind.
Does that make sense?

It seemed to explain why "knowing good and evil" was the chosen phrase for describing the loss of innocence.

Before then. I suppose, they were letting God decide what was "good", which fits in with what you were saying.

Edit; On consideration, though, even on that theory your suggestion of what might be called "contentious choice" still comes first, arguably. Because they had to choose the knowledge of good and evil.

Not being a Catholic, I don't know what Thomas Aquinas says on the subject, but it's the kind of thing he would have an answer on.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by DISRAELI]




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft

I just find it hard to believe that fruit of the tree, could give man knowledge of good and evil over night. Where as, the idea of man moving away from a relationship with God and going his own way, and in the process of doing so learns of evil, kind of makes more sense to me.

Do you see 2 Genesis Literally or Allegorically?


I do apologise for not responding before. I haven't looked in on this thread lately, and I wasn't aware that anyone had reacted.

My attitude to Genesis is moulded by the fact that I'm quite comfortable with Evolution as a theory- I don't have any problems with it.

This rather forces me into taking the chapter as allegory.
Your way of putting it and my way of putting it (not necessarily very different) might be related in some way to the growth of human consciousness.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I was thinking so, but there was that little hope that perhaps proof wouldn't be rejected. People reject proof, I have myself on a number of occasions before realizing the full scope of what I was looking at.


You'll have to clarify what you're talking about here because I don't know what you're referring to as proof or what you're claiming it is proof of. I think we've been "talking past each other" so I'll recap the conversation in hopes of clarifying matters:

I said that you were seemed to be arguing for a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve to some extent. You then claimed you were, but said that surely you'd have to show up at someone's house to provide proof. I then offered the "talking pet snake" comment as a little joke, but also as a way of indirectly asking what kind of proof you could present in person that you could not relay over a forum. You then responded back by asking if a talking pet snake is all it would take for me to believe in God (I never suggested this, I was talking about proving that the Adam & Eve story was literal). Then I tried to explain what was meant by the "talking pet snake" comment and now you're talking about proof being rejected.



Don't I feel silly, someone makes a historical reference and I'm playing music in my head
.


Ha! Don't worry about it, you probably know more about the guy than I do. I just randomly stumbled across his name a while ago and liked the name "Superbus" so I decided to use it as my forum name.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superbus
You'll have to clarify what you're talking about here because I don't know what you're referring to as proof or what you're claiming it is proof of.


Apologies for speaking in general terms. Everyone's proof is going to be different, though many have shared similarities in theirs. I made the mistake of assuming all believers had the same experiences I did, though when they gave me that 'O_o' look time and time again, I realized that my situation seemed a bit whacked out compared to the everyday.


Originally posted by Superbus
I think we've been "talking past each other" so I'll recap the conversation in hopes of clarifying matters:

I said that you were seemed to be arguing for a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve to some extent. You then claimed you were,


Maybe a better terms is that I'm now leaning towards a literal as opposed to leaning towards allegory. I haven't cast a final vote and not sure I would be able to in this lifetime.


Originally posted by Superbus
but said that surely you'd have to show up at someone's house to provide proof.


I could not do that, unforunately, else I'd find a way to your house if invited. I was meaning to say that it's easier to find current proof of God and move backwards through time instead of the other way around...and that proof we wouldn't have to meet face to face to obtain. Internet is fine, I hear you, you hear me, that'll work.


Originally posted by Superbus
I then offered the "talking pet snake" comment as a little joke, but also as a way of indirectly asking what kind of proof you could present in person that you could not relay over a forum. You then responded back by asking if a talking pet snake is all it would take for me to believe in God (I never suggested this, I was talking about proving that the Adam & Eve story was literal). Then I tried to explain what was meant by the "talking pet snake" comment and now you're talking about proof being rejected.


I was half-joking back, I don't have a talking snake, but was hoping to illustrate two things 1.) A talking snake is 'easy proof' as opposed to harder ones and 2.) Providing proof makes no guarentees on acceptance (whereas I'd used myself as a prime example). Rarely does the "see and believe" thing work as a one-off.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 
Knowing would have been something that existed as soon as God spoke the words.
I don't consider Adam to be an evil person.
The words in English, "Knowledge of Good and Evil" don't really convey all the meaning of the term.
Genesis 2 is like an enigma, for example try to find a book on it. It is something that people can have opinions on but no real scholars will jeopardize their reputations by taking a stand on what it means.
The people were put into the garden to "dress" it. They were not strictly speaking creating something, but manipulating what God had created. Eve later declared, "I have made a man, just like God does," thinking she had some sort of power, which God had said she did not, but was in a sort of bondage as a result of her acts.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I was half-joking back, I don't have a talking snake, but was hoping to illustrate two things 1.) A talking snake is 'easy proof' as opposed to harder ones and 2.) Providing proof makes no guarentees on acceptance (whereas I'd used myself as a prime example). Rarely does the "see and believe" thing work as a one-off.


Ok, thanks for clearing that up. You have to admit though, a talking snake would be one heck of an opening visual aid!

Edit: Also, while I basically understand what you're saying, wouldn't "easy" (i.e. the most direct or obvious) proof be the best kind to present up front if you're trying to prove something? I realize that kind of proof may not exist for the topic we're discussing, but at least in the general sense I would say this is true.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Superbus]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft

My personal view, is that most but not all parts, of the Adam and Eve story are allegorical. I believe it try’s to portray a story, with the help of various visual aids. The big question is, which of those visual aids are literally real and which ones are allegory.


How do you view the story of Adam and Eve, in Genesis?


Do you see it literally or allegorically and if so, why?


- JC


Both!

You have to rewind just a bit....and realize we're only here due to the war in heaven because some of us picked the wrong side between God the Father and satan who imagined himself to be as god and created a war in heaven.

Then come down to the fact that the earth is very very old, and there was life here prior to this earth age which is only about 14,ooo yrs old and was reborn just for us to be tested as to who we will follow.

There was a 6th day creation of mankind PRIOR to and separate from the Adamic 8th day creations of Adam and Eve who were NOT the first creations of this earth age of which this is the 2nd of three ages. 2 Peter talks briefly about the age that was and the age to come.

Find the Targums of genesis , do a search ,and read them, they give a better reading of what was hidden in the english versions.

Anyone who just sticks to reading the Bible in english who never looked up tree in the Hebrew concordance nor looked up trees, or tribes nor serpent, nor Adam/man in an online bible like biblos.com... has done themselves a great disservice because they don't have the deeper meaning of some very important words that need to be fully understood, not just glanced at.

So the original fall, was in heaven by us who took the wrong side and again in the garden by Eve who allowed herself to become wholly seduced by the words of satan.

I'll post back later with a link....sorry, I lost track of a really good one, many that I just found on a search are fragments....I want to find the whole book



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I believe the figures of Adam and Eve are literal. Even their children were named and Genesis (and later the Gospels) include Adam in the biblical lineages.

Some of the passages regarding them might be allegorical but I do believe they existed as the first humans in literal form.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Originally posted by DISRAELI
I do apologise for not responding before. I haven't looked in on this thread lately, and I wasn't aware that anyone had reacted.


That’s ok, I haven’t been on ATS myself for about 3 or 4 days. This thread was originally posted in the “Conspiracies in Religion” forum, so that may have caused a few posters some confusion.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
My attitude to Genesis is moulded by the fact that I'm quite comfortable with Evolution as a theory- I don't have any problems with it.

This rather forces me into taking the chapter as allegory…



I also go along with the theory of evolution but only up to a certain point. I go along with the scientific timelines and that there has been a development of species over time but I personally believe that the process is not a random one but instead God driven/directed.

Like yourself, I have also been forced to see Genesis chapter 2-3 as allegory. The dilemma for me right now is, how to reconcile “evolution” or more appropriately, a development of species over time, with certain aspects of 2-3 Genesis.


Many questions automatically crop up, for example…How can death enter the world as a punishment, if it was already part of the natural development of life? Other questions around the same theme (childbirth etc) naturally arise, when you accept evolution up to a certain point.



- JC



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by toasted
 





Originally posted by toasted

Find the Targums of genesis , do a search ,and read them, they give a better reading of what was hidden in the english versions.



Thanks for the information and for introducing me to the biblos.com website. I will definitely research the Targum of Genesis for a better understanding and insight into those verses.




Originally posted by toasted
So the original fall, was in heaven by us who took the wrong side and again in the garden by Eve who allowed herself to become wholly seduced by the words of satan.



Where does this idea come from, that the fall first took place, by us in heaven?



- JC



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


It's in the Book of Revelation.

Altho I am quite a big fan of reading, and a lot can be learned, on the other hand a lot can also be lost to those unfamiliar with older figures of speech and connecting the dots within the scriptures. what you think you see on the pages is just one level, without a concordance you'll miss a level, without a Pastor to guide you, you'll miss another level

The only remedy to that is a well informed Pastor who feeds his flock, meat and milk....those are the two types, the deeper/meat and the lighter/milk.....most folks see the milk and rarely get the meat.

I got my start with Chuck Missler, but I moved on to Arnold Murray and his son Dennis @
shepherdschapel.com...
where there is streaming video and archived audio....but be aware, the archived audio is only 5 days, starting monday the top audio falls off first then the one under goes to the top and will fall off the next day...they usually try to stay with one book then move on.

But these guys teach chapter by chapter and verse by verse to give the listener His Word as it should be taught. So depending on which book you hear first you may not catch the difference right off the bat, but it should not take very long to tell, these folks know His Word and are doing what Pastors should be doing....TEACHING with understanding not just preaching...

And they use BOTH Books, the Hebrew OT and the NT.

I'm glad you have a thirst for knowledge. I hope this info helps answer your questions and further that you "hear" His voice and want to "hear" more.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by Joecroft
 


It's in the Book of Revelation.


If you mean the "fall of Satan" in Revelation ch12, I don't think that belings to the time before Eden. It's about the effect of the Cross on Satan's power. I've got a thread going on the subject at the moment, in the Prophecies forum.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Yes

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

I'll check out your thread when I get a moment.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
I personally believe that the process is not a random one but instead God driven/directed...
The dilemma for me right now is, how to reconcile “evolution” or more appropriately, a development of species over time, with certain aspects of 2-3 Genesis...
Many questions automatically crop up, for example…How can death enter the world as a punishment, if it was already part of the natural development of life?

One line of approach might be to think in terms of the development of human consciousness. Animals die, but presumably they're not conscious of the fact that they die.

As far as we can tell, human consciousness brings out a sense of detachment from, even alienation from, the rest of nature, and also an ability to anticipate, to look into the future, which makes it possible both to make future plans and to dread possible versions of the future. It seems to me that these effects are suggestively similar to the Genesis "loss of innocence" as traditionally understood. In Genesis ch2, we make a decision independently of God, find ourselves alienated from God, and make the acquaintance of evil.

The tricky thing is finding a way to follow that line of thought without giving in to the "Satan was right, knowledge is a good thing" form of argument.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
There are two "TREES" in the garden that are living beings.

This is where the generous use of a concordance comes in and also a good Bible teacher.

I found that strongs was decent but left some holes....for instance;

How many people can tell me what happened to the other 2 Adams h119 and h121 in the concordance?

Grab your strongs and look up adam in the front, every adam in the Hebrew Bible [ it's not the Jewish Bible ] is h120....but when you go to the back of the concordance you'll find next to h120 to look up the word, you'll notice h119 and h121.....[ where did h119 go? ] they described a man slightly different than the h120....the writers knew there was a difference [ and it honestly gets covered up in the english and you cannot see it til you look at the phrase in the Hebrew], then compare the 6th day creations to the 8th day creations [ eth ha aadam -- with the article and the particle, is a separate man all together from the 6th day creations ] but it does not tell you where they went.

[[ also, look up that 6th and 8th day creation in the targums, that's where it get's exposed to the light of day, and where the omissions are shown ]]

I have my own theory and it has to do with a combination of PC but also Christ gave us clues too....by the difference in when He talked to His apostles and when He talked in parables to the masses AND in Proverbs 25:2 it says " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search
out a matter is the glory of kings.".....which tells us it was covered up on purpose, for His purpose, not for mans.

Also don't forget, the talmud is not all lies, there are truths to be found in the talmud...if it can bear witness to the scriptures, then it is truth....the same goes for the zohar.

Anyways, I had found a great site for the targums, but my puter crashed before I could save the link and I haven't been able to find that one particular site.....otherwise I'd post it.

There are Jonathon [ Yonathon ]

and

Palestinian

and

Onkelos targums

read genesis of all three up until after the garden....it exposes what is hidden in the KJV and only hinted at or referred to indirectly which lends itself to confusion.

one more concordance...youngs.....it showed me, that Atlas [ considered a myth ], was another name for Noah!!!!!! which actually proves what I've been finding out in my studies, that there is only one God , Yahweh and then there are imitators and other names for the same God...and it doesn't stop there....the ASSYRIAN tablets PROVE, that the Israelites [ northern tribes were called by different names, sac, gumri, kimri and many other names that so-called scholars told the world were other people thus adding to the confusion about what had happened to the lost tribes that Christ Himself said He came for, and sent the apostles to find!!!!

see;

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275310276&sr=8-2

more answers here;

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275310369&sr=1-1

and back to trees for a sec....study the cedars of lebanon, by doing a search in Biblos and see if they are trees or people....



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by toasted
 



Hi




Originally posted by toasted
I got my start with Chuck Missler, but I moved on to Arnold Murray and his son Dennis @
shepherdschapel.com...


I have one book by Dr Chuck Missler which was given to me by one of my Christian friends, the book is called “Prophecy 20/20” although I haven’t had much of a chance to read it.


I managed to find a website where you can read verses from the Targums

Targum website

THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE (Genesis 1-6)

I’m still chugging my way through it…



Originally posted by toasted
How many people can tell me what happened to the other 2 Adams h119 and h121 in the concordance?

Grab your strongs and look up adam in the front, every adam in the Hebrew Bible [ it's not the Jewish Bible ] is h120....but when you go to the back of the concordance you'll find next to h120 to look up the word, you'll notice h119 and h121.....[ where did h119 go? ]


Where did it go! The link has the word "adam" but the concordance h119 has the word "adom" instead, and defines it as “to be red”, very strange…



Originally posted by toasted
There are two "TREES" in the garden that are living beings.


That kind of make sense to me because many verses in the 4 gospels use the word “tree”, to signify a person or persons.

For example…

NIV

Mathew 12:33
Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.


In my own mind I kind of see God/Jesus as the tree of life because they are the source that gives life. Jesus is the bridge back to God that leads to life from a spiritual perspective and strangely enough, Jesus was most likely crucified on a tree.




Originally posted by toasted
[[ also, look up that 6th and 8th day creation in the targums, that's where it get's exposed to the light of day, and where the omissions are shown ]]


8th day creation?



Originally posted by toasted
You have to rewind just a bit....and realize we're only here due to the war in heaven because some of us picked the wrong side between God the Father and satan who imagined himself to be as god and created a war in heaven.


I always assumed that the war in heaven took place when man was around on earth. If you say we chose the wrong side in heaven resulting in a fall and that’s how we ended up here, then are you saying we were once angels?



- JC



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


" Where did it go! The link has the word "adam" but the concordance h119 has the word "adom" instead, and defines it as “to be red”, very strange…"

This is where the 8th day come in...those creations are the white western european peoples, like Irish, Brits, Swedes, Iceland, there is much more, but that should serve as an example. And ol hitler manipulated the Aryan part of that to justify exterminating the Jews...there was no scripture authorizing him to commit genocide

the RED part is to show blood in the face...ever see Princess Dianas sons, as young men, with them RUDDY CHEEKS?!....those are h119 creations.

There is a lot more to it.....you'll see when you start reading the Targums, but I have chores to do and you have plenty to read.

I'll continue on later on, not sure when.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Fortunately, folks have uploaded Pastor Murray on Youtube,

so here is Rev 12 so you can hear how pastor murray teaches on this

www.youtube.com...

but you truly need to start at the beginning....to a pastor who teaches the Word and the age is millions of years old, not a few thousand

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

the appendix in this book is a goldmine

www.amazon.com...

I hope you enjoy.





..



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft

My personal view, is that most but not all parts, of the Adam and Eve story are allegorical. I believe it try’s to portray a story, with the help of various visual aids. The big question is, which of those visual aids are literally real and which ones are allegory.


How do you view the story of Adam and Eve, in Genesis?


Do you see it literally or allegorically and if so, why?


- JC


The answer is obvious unless you believe that talking snakes are real.

If you do, see a shrink.

It is not to be read literally and genesis was not a fall. It was our elevation to having a moral sense.

Thank God Eve ate. She was supposed to.
Only a fool of a God would deny man the moral sense that comes with the knowledge of good and evil.

Regards
DL



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Joecroft

My personal view, is that most but not all parts, of the Adam and Eve story are allegorical. I believe it try’s to portray a story, with the help of various visual aids. The big question is, which of those visual aids are literally real and which ones are allegory.


How do you view the story of Adam and Eve, in Genesis?


Do you see it literally or allegorically and if so, why?


- JC


The answer is obvious unless you believe that talking snakes are real.

If you do, see a shrink.

It is not to be read literally and genesis was not a fall. It was our elevation to having a moral sense.

Thank God Eve ate. She was supposed to.
Only a fool of a God would deny man the moral sense that comes with the knowledge of good and evil.

Regards
DL



I'm sorry, that you didn't understand it at all.

A concordance and a good Pastor are a students best friend.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join