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.

 

The Satanic tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WENEEDAREVOLUTION
 

I think Genesis 2 was an older document, that had a fable or whatever, that happened to include the creation of Adam, and later Eve. Sometime after that had been in circulation and had developed all kinds of offshoot theories about it, the priests decided to make another version of the creation story to correct errors that had encroached and that did not jive with the commonly understood theology among the priesthood of the Israelite nation.
So there was not an earlier general creation of a lower form of people, with a separate moment of coming into being, of a higher form. It is just two different tellings of the same events.
The detailed story (in cahapter 2) about what happened to the human race, long ago, to cause us to be living a less than ideal life, is an organic cultural item. The other story (happens to be called Chapter 1, but is later than 2, as for the actual age of a document) is a synthetic thing for a teaching to establish a fixed timeline of the creation week, and certain things about God and how he did things, in particular that the making of man was not a haphazard or accidental event but was an integral part of the creation plan.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Originally posted by eight bits

I have to ask: "How did snake move before God command it to crawl on the ground?" (After A&E sinned).

Hey, V. Here's a follow-up question. Does God change anything in that speech?

For example, more pain in childbearing. More than what? How many children had the Woman had at that point?

Memo from engineering: baby's head, this big. Mother's birth canal, this wide. That was gonna hurt, all along.

Nice catch by the Head Designer, though. Insist that the lousy fit is really the client's fault


Hay 8-bits!

Good question. According to the Genesis, they didn't have any children by that time, IIRC. Maybe He was planning that the herons would bring the babies for humans, but changed his mind once his most precious designs had flawed


It seems as the lead designer decided it so that humans will sin - after all he could've planted the tree elsewhere. And maybe his designs were poor from beginning. He couldn't even control his own favorite trickster.

Book of Job is also amazing display of his idiotic behaviour. Though Job was a decent character with lots of understanding, even more so than god himself. I am not necessarily denying nor accepting god's existence, nor I do not know anything about him or his plans. But I think I know that Bible, although giving few good pointers, is load of crap per literal interpretation. It is merely a book, written by people whom thought they knew something about the god.

I find it quite ridiculous to claim simultanously that biblical god is perfect and that the Bible is word of god.

-v


edit on 10-9-2010 by v01i0 because: 239



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


You seem to not know what Satan is. Satan is an Angel. Angels have no free will.
www.beingjewish.com...
But it's o.k. you're an Christian. The Church needs a fake enemy to control lost souls.
www.usbible.com...
If God made the snake more cunning then all the other creatures then God is at fault from the beginning.
Gen 3:1a says God created the serpent more cunning than any of the other wild animals. With an introduction like that, let us dismiss any thoughts that it is a fallen angel; it is a wild animal.
www.usbible.com...


The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren’t isolated from other cultures and they didn’t get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism.

www.usbible.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel



The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren’t isolated from other cultures and they didn’t get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism.

www.usbible.com...


Don't you know that satan himself has planted similarities on various religions of old in order to trick and confuse?

Or that's what good (indoctrinated) christians would say


Count me out


-v



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


That is what I like to laugh about. They always have a lie up their sleeve to keep followers.
Non of these religious groups from the Abrahamic faiths agree with one another so which one of them are correct?
The answer is non of them! Some Christian say they don't care about the contradictions in the Bible. They believe in national revelation or witness testimony. The what is the point with having to buy a Bible?
www.usbible.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


As well.

I think it's sad, but no religion is right, nor do they have sole right on god. But I admit that religions were good for social cohesion - but now that world and nations are coming close, these traditions gone conflict and their purpose is over. Hence I think the new age stuff is coming even stronger and uniting people from various religions under same banner of faith (oh no, not this again!).

-v



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BoehringerIngelheim
 

It's really the same thing as the tree of knowlege from kabalah.
Left blue right red if you sit like the goat. The anunaki left the tree behind, it is the bad guys.
Right =reptilian
Left= what god created =human



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Reply to post by v01i0
 


My thoughts exactly. Same with magnets, maybe milk and dark chocolate mix is also satan.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Satan is not the adversary of god, god does not have adversaries, these are just villans running around the universe
doing as they please, messing everything up that have been created by the supreme force of the universe, the creator. They are like bloodsucking parasites, they feed on the weak, make rules, tell people how to live and are very harsh in general. It's the same tree, they play the good and the bad while god is something else. It's not the creator that created it, it's the pranksters.






edit on 10-9-2010 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by mysticalzoe
 


I agree with you that Daath is not the same concept as sexual union...while I'm hardly an expert, based on years of driveby reading on the subject, that interpretation is unusual/off...



Daath is merely the signifier of the fall. "There are 10 holy sephiroth, not 9 and not eleven". Go figure. The facts are clear. Daath only really becomes clear to practical QBL.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Re: Pepsi78

You wrote:

"Satan is not the adversary of god, god does not have adversaries, these are just villans running around the universe
doing as they please, messing everything up that have been created by the supreme force of the universe, the creator. They are like bloodsucking parasites, they feed on the weak, make rules, tell people how to live and are very harsh in general. It's the same tree, they play the good and the bad while god is something else. It's not the creator that created it, it's the pranksters."

And where do you have all this amazing inside information from?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BoehringerIngelheim
 


I like your thread but what do you think about this?

Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children

There's a missing link it seems to me.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iamnot
 


What part of the Bible does that verse relate too? Sounds like past Israel to me.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
It is past but it is present and future as well because the word of God is forever. Here it is in context,

Hosea 4
1Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.

2By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

3Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

4Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.

5Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother.

6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Not everyone will believe in what you believe in.You have to be called to believe.I think there is substance to your post but at the same time, i think I need to read the original post and be God inspired to discern the truth from the lies.Many pastors without naming names who have too much money and power have been directing the church in the wrong direction for too many years.I don't want to be deceived I want to understand and make sure I say the right thing because I'm passing this to other people who rely on me.I am accountable to what I post and say.I need to be responsible to be truthful and say the truth.Thank you for your post.It made me look differently at Genesis which many people say it is an allegory book and never happened while others say it's about God's people Israel.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Romantic_Rebel
This is very interesting to read! I though Satan was an Angel not serpent and God made the Serpent more cunning then all the other creatures? So if God intensively allowed this to happen then we can say death comes from God.
I believe this sites interpretation of Adam and Eve.
www.usbible.com...



If you read: Lord God brought all the beats before Adam to name.....all but one. The Serpent.

Why did Lord God not bring the Serpent before Adam to name? It could be because Adam already knew him.

Eve was the last living thing Lord God made in the garden of Eden. Eve might not have known Lord God/the serpent. Adam might have told her about him, But that does not mean she ever saw him in person.
Because it is odd that she would let him trick her, if she knew who he was. The way the verses are written it seams like she didnt know who it was she was talking to. That might be the reason why the serpent/Lord God tricked her and not Adam.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


I think Genesis 2 was an older document, that had a fable or whatever, that happened to include the creation of Adam, and later Eve.

And I believe you are correct and that you are very close to the Torah autographs. Of course that is only my own opinion and I can't really prove anything. Maybe one day we will have the original text and know the exact text.

One other thing if i may ask is the following. Do you believe that prior to the creation of Adam, that the world was inhabited with the angels which were cast out out of heaven? When you consider the Sumerian Kings list [cuneiform's] which tell us that the Sumerian kings, who came from heaven, ruled this earth for centuries before Adam, could be the Satan's of which were cast into hell as is told by Jesus. If that could be true then the purpose of a garden [Gan Eden] could have been a protective celestial garden on a terrestrial earth. Could this garden have been a secured shelter for Adam from the outside world of disobedient heavenly creation?

The reason I ask is this --- How could a terrestrial garden have a celestial tree of Life planted in it? You would then have two substances which are not compatible. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were eating from the tree of life as celestial beings in a celestial garden and then after they both sinned their substance was changed and they were cast from the garden as terrestrial humans that would die.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned and prior to them not sinning, they lived without death. In order to live without death would they not have to have eaten from the tree of life in the garden? The reason being that after they sinned God then took the tree of life away from them and cast them from the garden. Now I can't understand why they were cast from the garden but can understand why the tree of life was taken from them. In other words they could not die in the garden and God simply take the tree out of the garden. They had to leave the garden and that is what I do not understand. Could they have been celestial while in the garden and were cast out in a terrestrial substance [physicality] which would in fact then be the sentence of death?

Now it is believed that this same tree and water of life that was in Gan Eden is now in the third heaven and located in the New Jerusalem. I am under the impression that nothing terrestrial can be allowed in the heavenly kingdom. Jesus taught that flesh and blood can not enter into the heavenly abode nor anything that is corrupt. Then by this the Gan Eden could not have been a terrestrial garden. Or Could It? Just a thought ---



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BoehringerIngelheim

The serpent wasn't Satan.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The discussion here has been completely distorted by a false interpretation of the word "Daath". It does NOT mean "sexual union". Its translation as "knowledge" signifies the knowing that comes from direct, personal experience, as opposed to second-hand, academic knowledge that comes from reading books and listening to others. It is certainly true that "knowing" is sometimes used in the Old Testament in a sexual sense that husbands and wives "know" each other in a far deeper and intimate sense than their friends would. But the mistake being made here is to turn a highly specialised, Kabbalistic word with wholly a mystical meaning, namely, the ontological gulf between the Supernal Triad (subjective level of God) and the seven Sephiroth of Construction (God's objective manifestation), into one with a connotation that is often used in the Bible. Sexual knowledge has NOTHING to do with Daath.

Some of you need to learn Kabbalah (a study that takes years of meditation) and then you won't create wild, silly fantasies out of your ignorance of it. The trouble is that some of you think you can look up any word in Wikipedia in order to understand what it means. You can get away with that for non-mystical topics but not for esoteric subjects like Kabbalah, which requires years of study and meditation before words like "Daath" and the titles of the Sephiroth reveal their profound meanings.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BoehringerIngelheim
According to the site, as much as I can recall, the verb 'to know' in the Bible is often used to denote sexual union.
...
The Greek word for knowledge is "gnosis" and the Hebrew for that is "daath" which means "sexual union" or to unify the opposites.

Knowledge: Insight, Volume 2

...
Meaning of Term. In the Hebrew Scriptures a number of words (nouns) that can be translated “knowledge” are related to the basic verb ya·dhaʽʹ, signifying “know (by being told),” “know (by observing),” “know (by personal acquaintance or experience),” or “be experienced, skillful.” The exact shade of meaning, and often the way each word should be translated, must be determined by the context. For instance, God said that he ‘knew’ Abraham and so was sure that that man of faith would command his offspring correctly. Jehovah was not saying simply that he was aware that Abraham existed but, rather, that He had become well acquainted with Abraham, for he had observed Abraham’s obedience and interest in true worship over many years.—Ge 18:19, NW, La; Ge 22:12; compare JEHOVAH (Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning).

As with the verb ya·dhaʽʹ (know), the principal Hebrew word rendered “knowledge” (daʹʽath) carries the basic idea of knowing facts or having information, but at times it includes more than that. For example, Hosea 4:1, 6 says that at a certain time there was no “knowledge of God” in Israel. That does not mean that the people were not aware that Jehovah was God and that he had delivered and led the Israelites in the past. (Ho 8:2) But by their course of murdering, stealing, and committing adultery, they showed that they rejected real knowledge because they were not acting in harmony with it.—Ho 4:2.

Ya·dhaʽʹ sometimes denotes sexual intercourse, as at Genesis 4:17, where some translations render it literally “knew” (KJ; RS; Ro), whereas others suitably say that Cain “had intercourse” with his wife. (AT; Mo; NW) The Greek verb gi·noʹsko is used similarly at Matthew 1:25 and Luke 1:34.

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Ge 2:17; 3:5, 6), Jehovah said to his associate in creative work (Joh 1:1-3): “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” (Ge 3:22) This apparently did not mean merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. Furthermore, God’s words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15) Evidently, Adam and Eve got to know what was good and what was bad in the special sense of now judging for themselves what was good and what was bad. They were idolatrously placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery.—Jer 10:23.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures there are two words commonly translated “knowledge,” gnoʹsis and e·piʹgno·sis. Both are related to the verb gi·noʹsko, which means “know; understand; perceive.” The way this verb is used in the Bible, though, shows that it can indicate a favorable relationship between the person and one he “knows.” (1Co 8:3; 2Ti 2:19) Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20)
...

As marketed by the website the OP was reading which makes efficient use of the phenomenon described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (telling people that which they want to hear or what intrigues them, makes them feel better about themselves as if they know something many others don't). It's still a fake or false sense of intellectual security though because it's simply not true or only half-true (not the whole story or given a spin, like saying "often" instead of "sometimes" and then ignoring the more common meanings and usage in the Scriptures).

Btw, at Genesis 4:1 Ya·dhaʽʹ (know) is used, not daʹʽath (knowledge) in case that wasn't already clear from the OP. As far as I can tell from the above, daʹʽath is never used to denote sexual intercourse in the Hebrew Scriptures: the principal Hebrew word rendered “knowledge” (daʹʽath) carries the basic idea of knowing facts or having information, but at times it includes more than that. But that doesn't include sexual intercourse* (an example is given above about the extended meaning right after the part I bolded and just quoted again). *: or "sexual union" to use the OP's terminology (or Timothy Freke's and Peter Gandy's as quoted in the OP).
edit on 12-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join