Truth behind ADAM and EVE

Mad what you call ridiuculas I call faith. i give it that it might not happen exacally the way the bible says. But faith is why i believe that adam and eve where reall people. I think its more stupid to believe that all this space and earth is so small happen on a accident. That sounds more ridiculas than what I said. The fact remail great things happen in life past and present. Lives saved and love. Heros gain destiny and died. And not only thank great pain has risen on earth. Murderes, betrayers, great and evil people. I will not believe that all the evil I have seen. And lets just say I've seen alot. Is not out there. To say evil is alive is to say Good is out there. God show me and beat me up see him and know him. God is alive and he is around you. You blinding your self. And gamabling you life away. Its a big gamable life after death. i know where I lay.

I think the Vatican knows it's stories have outlived their usefullness and so now they are looking to revise the religion and authenticate it some more focusing on the new age ufology religion. It's possible this new religion will be similair to that of Agnostics and Ufologists.

If you think that it's a true story then fine, I won't judge. But If scientific genesis is the evolution of the atom to form cells then forming the human being then how can Adam and Eve be real people? Adamic man is an Atomic one.

Now science is beginning to study DNA. Atoms are planets compared to subatomic level of study. DNA has never been witnessed when it is forming. The acids are never separate. What causes the atoms to evolve? that is science's biggest question now and religion as well.

Well, if we are going to consider A & E, then perhaps we should read whats not in the bible?

Those books that are heretic...

The First Book of Adam and Eve

The Second Book of Adam and Eve

And maybe you might find this intereting too...

Divine Father and MotherGOD

I like what Sumerian Myth offers too:

The first man in Enuma Elish was not named. The first woman in the Hebrew version was not named either, although it is popularly accepted that the first woman mentioned in the Talmud was Lilith.

The Lilith legend varies as to the source, but the most distinct is that of the first attempt to create a mate for Adam. Adam was allowed to watch the construction of the first woman from flesh and was repulsed by the as yet skinless unfinished woman and requested another to be made from his rib.

Other Lilith legends from the Hebrew mythos include one where Adam and Lilith are created simultaneously but fight for dominance. In this, the most popular version, Lilith speaks a magic word of evocation and flies away to party with Demons on the shores of the Red Sea.

Once Adam and his new younger bride, Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden, they too have a falling out and endure a period of separation. This legend varies wildly according to the source as well, but according to the Talmud, Adam wanders alone for 130 years and sires many demon spawn whie seperated from Eve. Lilith too is supposed to have spawned many demons during this time. There is apparently no mention as to what Eve was up to during this period. Following this stage Adam then endures some 130 years of shame and fasting and perhaps another 130 years of wearing fig leaves after returning to Eve.

evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com...

Inanna
Nanna and Ningal's daughter Inanna, goddess of love and war. "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Underworld"
A woman planted the huluppu tree in Inanna's garden, but the Imdugud-bird (Anzu bird?) made a nest for its young there, Lilith (or her predecessor, a lilitu-demon) made a house in its trunk, and a serpent made a home in its roots. Inanna appeals to Utu about her unwelcome guests, but he is unsympathetic. She appeals to Gilgamesh, here her brother, and he is receptive. He tears down the tree and makes it into a throne and bed for her. In return for the favor, Inanna manufactures a pukku and mikku for him. (Wolkstein and Kramer pp. 5-9)

home.comcast.net...

No offense but think abo0ut it. Adam and eve are earths american words. When the bible was wriitten it was not in american. so adam and eve were not the words use for there names. the names you use to replace adam and eve what would they be in the first laguage the bible was wrote.

*Clink!*

I just dropped a quarter in your coffe mug StreetCornerPhilosopher.

Thanks for the knowledge.

Originally posted by slymattb
No offense but think abo0ut it. Adam and eve are earths american words. When the bible was wriitten it was not in american. so adam and eve were not the words use for there names. the names you use to replace adam and eve what would they be in the first laguage the bible was wrote.

This is precisely my point. Is there a bible anywhere on Earth that is at least over 300 years old? The bible itself. Not the scriptures that in
fluenced the publication

I thank you for your donation. I'll put it towards my mortgage.

Back in those days the bible was not made. There was scrolls with like matthew, another scroll John. The reason you know that not too much has change cuz the bible scrolls were mad with many copies and in different langues. hundrends and hundreds were made. So you can compare them to what was put to gether to make the bible to the hundrends and hundreds of scrolls to see if there were changed. The bible does not have one single writer. It has many over 20 to 30 writers. That a guess.

It's all conditioning. It's like comic books. Subliminal and an exaggeration of the truth. The creators are very real and they are underground in front of quantum computers. The DNA architects are some of the most talented beings in the universe, I doubt there are any forms of higher intelligence in humanoid form. They must be of the 7th root at least.

Simple metaphor for post DNA sequencing. The Evolution of the Atom.
EVE ADAM

Awesome, thanks for posting. I've always believed in Adam and Eve as more spiritual beings than the first humans. Most of the bible's words definately have a different meaning.

Adam was the upgraded human, the one who had lighter skin than the rest. He was not the first human by far. He was the first man to have serpent blood.

So many things being said. Started off real interesting-like, and then horrible grammar and spelling took over. The Bible was NOT invented 300 years ago. I don't have time to school anyone on this, go visit a library ( or do some google searches!). The "fruit" of the Garden of Eden was most certainly not an apple, or a pomegranite. Most likely it was completely figurative! But, if you insist on interpteting the Bible literally, then you have to accept the story that the Tree of Knowledge was pemanantly separated from mankind and protected by cherubim ( or was it seraphim, don't have a Bible right now, but I'm sure one of you Christians can look it up! Along with the Tree of Life. Why couldn't they eat the fruit of that tree first?!) That means that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and ruined it for everyone else.
It never ceases to amaze me how selectively observant people are.

Before, I forget- really liked the basic premise of this thread, but ( as someone else pointed out ) there are some linguistic discrepancies.

Just saying....

reply to post by StreetCorner Philosopher

Adam was the upgraded human, the one who had lighter skin than the rest. He was not the first human by far. He was the first man to have serpent blood.

No, he wasn't the first human but he did not have serpent blood. Where did you get that?


........Whirlwind

Just my insight into the subject after reading so many different accounts of Genesis and not just the one in the bible either. I don't just take one story and stop there, there are many accounts.

Adam was the first "Whiter" man.

Food blocks the full flow of spirit diminishing our aura or life force which in turn diminishes the length and quality of our lives. So why do we eat? Eating was introduced to us by the reptiles, who, jealous of our perfect state, decided to bring us down with them. They succeeded. They have done this with every new race introduced to this planet. Adama, or white man, was the latest casualty.

Read this article, it's fascinating.



[edit on 9/14/2007 by StreetCorner Philosopher]

reply to post by Nyrossius Maxim

The "fruit" of the Garden of Eden was most certainly not an apple, or a pomegranite. Most likely it was completely figurative! But, if you insist on interpteting the Bible literally, then you have to accept the story that the Tree of Knowledge was pemanantly separated from mankind and protected by cherubim ( or was it seraphim, don't have a Bible right now, but I'm sure one of you Christians can look it up! Along with the Tree of Life. Why couldn't they eat the fruit of that tree first?!) That means that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and ruined it for everyone else.
It never ceases to amaze me how selectively observant people are.

You are correct in that the "fruit" of the garden wasn't an apple, etc. It wasn't a piece of fruit at all anymore than the serpent was a talking snake.


.......Whirlwind

reply to post by whirlwind


Nice to chat with you again, whirlwind. I believe the Genesis account to be an adaptation from ancient Bablyonian stories. Also, I don't take it literally true, and now I'm guessing you don't either?

If not literal, then figurative, or symbolic maybe. That's why I liked this general gist of this post - open to different ideas, but streetcorner philosopher needs to understand a few things ( which have been pointed out by other members - good job! ) and definitely check out those apocryphal texts that were mentioned - might help in formulating his theory.
In my opinion, science and ancient religious texts aren't going to match up quite as nicely as people might like.

science and religion is a dichotomy. They are mutually exclusive. I think in the case of the bible's genesis story, it was written after the science. Purposely hidden under the literal text. But in most cases, theoretic scientists cannot show and prove without a belief or theory to begin with.

reply to post by StreetCorner Philosopher


See, I think you're close, but in this case the religion predates the science. I guess that's my major objection to your theory, but I in no way want to discourage you in your search.

I have often thought about what the whole Adam and Eve and paradise was really all about. Still don't have any conclusions.

A few chapters into Genesis something is mentioned about there being giants in the land during those times ( after eden, before the flood ) as a result of "the sons of God knowing the daughters of man". Very curious verse ( I want to say its in the first 3-5 chapters of Genesis ). Anyways, good luck finding a Christian to satisfactorilly explain that one, but go check out some Zacharias Sitchin, if you haven't already. That's what got him going.

reply to post by Nyrossius Maxim


Thanks for the information! I will definitely go and check that out. There are so many books and so many stories! We have to take these stories and unlock the truth from them, because the way the stories are written make it impossible to see the truth behind them unless you can distinguish the subliminal from the literal.

reply to post by StreetCorner Philosopher


Richard E. Friedman wrote an excellent book called "Who Wrote the Bible".
It mostly deals with the first 5 books ( the Torah ) and is very objective.
His conclusion is basically that the Torah was comprised of 4 main, previously written texts that were woven together as one. I read the book a few years back and it has stuck with me ever since.

Just so more ammo for you.