Genesis was written by biased men.

I don't think that Genesis, the first chapter of the OT, was divinely inspired. There are too many discrepancies. I suspect it was written by ordinary men with a bias against women.

Genesis 1:16

God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Age of earth 4.54 billion years.

Star found in our galaxy 13.2 billion years.

Also, "Let there be light" came after the earth was created.

Source: www.physorg.com...

Genesis 1:27

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

But then there is a different account on the creation of the female ...

Genesis 2:22

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Which way is it?

Genesis 2:18

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

I really don't think that a divine spirit would describe a woman as a suitable helper ...

Genesis 1:25

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

God created all the animals, including the serpent. And all was good! So how come the serpent turned against God? What made the serpent not good? Many agree that the serpent is a symbol for Satan, but why not state that explicitly in the scripture? Why omit that crucial point?

Also:

Genesis 3:14

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

This makes me believe that the talking serpent is indeed just a talking serpent.

Genesis 3:11

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

God knows everything. So why set up his children for failure and then ask questions he already knows the answer to? This doesn't make sense to me.

Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Sounds a bit too macho for 2009.


I could continue with this. There are many more statements that boggle my mind.

I'm looking forward to hearing from bible scholars about the above mentioned passages. I'm here to learn and when I hear a logical explanation I'm willing to listen & accept.

BTW: I do believe in "God". (There is no reason to apply the atheist label.) I sometimes seem to have trouble how "God" is represented in certain texts.


All the best,

N

reply to post by Nichiren


Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner

Yeah it doesn't take a genius to see that Genesis is full of holes, aside from the two seemingly contradictory accounts of creation (it says God commands the Earth to bring forth life, sounds like evolution to me and then it says there was light before God creates the sun)

And The Garden of Eden, anyone taking that literally needs to have their head examined

I mean an All-Powerful All-Knowing God plants a tree that bears fruit, fruit he doesn't want people to eat... Where does he plant it? Why right out in the garden where the people live of course. Not to mention the fact the fruit is supposed to let Adam and Eve know the difference between good and evil (someone explain how Evil can exist with an All-Powerful GOOD God running around) so essentially the fruit lets you Deny Ignorance

Its just a story with hundreds of authors and countless contradictions and millions of mixed messages...

Reply to post by Nichiren

Awesome thread. I can't wait. My hunny and I were having a discussion about some of this tonite. Strange pillow talk.
I'm starting to have some problems with the bible.
Too many hands in it. Too many chances for misinterpretation in reproduction. Too many ommissions.
4.5 billion years old and HOW old would it have us believe mankind is?
I believe in a universal power, but am getting more confused all the time. Too much killing. Crusades, Inquisition. Argh. Sorry.
It certainly does seem to belittle women a bit.
Thanks for starting this one.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The bible was conceived at the Council of Nicia around the late 4th century AD. they only chose a few books out of many to go into the final cut of the bible. They left many a gospel out because it didn't jive with the truth being sold; yes sold.

Now, beyond that I don't think the bible was meant for Your average Person to be interpreted. I think it is a very Esoteric book, and used in a different manner by the Elite, or their groups. I think the bible can be read in different regards with different interpretations.
S&F

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Nichiren

 

And The Garden of Eden, anyone taking that literally needs to have their head examined

exactly.

specifically.. YOU and the OP.


don't take it literally... and you might actually benefit in reality from what those words and many more actually mean.
not in the 3 yr old interpretation of actual PEOPLE but a higher level of intellectual meaning that can bring deep spiritual satisfaction. through PRACTICAL .. actually practice-able means... like ayou actually do something that it says and you get results and become closer to god by doing this....

if you paused for a moment and humbled yourself severely (dificult online I know) ..

and reconceptualized the messages in the text as the metaphorical context they were designed to be seen by those with eyes to see..

then you may derive a good deal more practical and amazing data from the writings.


do exactly what you suggest.. stop taking it literally. and take it metaphorically.

the Old and New Testament present a vastness of information on the human mind and behavior... but what's on a deeper level of perception.. through the Language of Branches as the Kabbalistic authors of it use, is symbolic information on human PHYSIOLOGY.

the tree of good and evil being the intellectual animal's body's nervous system.
the fruit being the sensation of the orgasm.. the animal spasm that holds the power to create an entirely new human lifeform.
after reproducing or not, a couple can engagein white tantra / sexual alchemy and practice chaste coitus...
sex without the orgasm.. by resisting the spinal column's energetic base urge at the sexual region of EVE ...
and resist in eating of the orgasmic fuit.

to sacrifice the orgasm...
the sexual energy 'blesses' or energizes transmutes the 'waters' (semen / vaginal fluid) .. and their creative essence is reserved and rerouted inward on it's alchemic journey to the place of the skull... up the spine.. the river jordan..

read / hear more about all this wisdom and true interpretation of scripture of all religions.. through the gnostic teachings link in my signature.


it's always good to step back and re-think things... because sometimes you will be amazed.

-

[edit on 20-9-2009 by prevenge]

Genesis

I was thinking, just a random thought I had one day, that the bible is a spell book.

I know weird huh but...

Reciting a prayer at church, the priest leads, and the congragation follows.
He says "may the lord be with you" response"and also with you"
Like you get one let the lord be with you and he gets like 100.
and so on and so forth.

The stories could be the wrappings around it.
IDK random but you know this is ats.

Originally posted by Nichiren
I really don't think that a divine spirit would describe a woman as a suitable helper ...

And what makes you think you know what a "divine spirit" would or wouldn't do? I think you'd be stridently offended if God allowed you to observe His dealings with mankind through the ages. He would appear to be the kind of deity you would have nothing to do with. That much, I can guarantee you.

Originally posted by Nichiren
God created all the animals, including the serpent. And all was good! So how come the serpent turned against God? What made the serpent not good? Many agree that the serpent is a symbol for Satan, but why not state that explicitly in the scripture? Why omit that crucial point?

Nothing was omitted. Genesis, especially the first several chapters, are densely symbolic. If you try to treat it as a claim to literal scientific understanding, you are falling short of the purpose of the creation accounts.

The serpent is indeed Satan. Perhaps possessing a literal serpent, perhaps being described in metaphorical terms. We also see John in Revelation talking about Satan being the serpent that grew into a dragon.

And why did Satan turn against the Creator? Simple answer, really. God created all his sentient beings with a creative mind, freedom to act, and with the possibility to act contrary to God's will. One day it occurs to Satan that he could run his life independently of God's rule. Instead of letting that idea pass, he acts on it and took one third of his kind into rebellion with him. Not content with an angelic following, he strikes at the covenant representative of Man...Adam himself. And with Adam's bending the knee to Satan, he staked his claim over humanity.

And ever since, the struggle between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman has increased through the ages. Of course, at the crucifixion, Christ has crushed the head of the serpent, so his original power is destroyed. And yet, he is not finally vanquished until the Last Day, when Christ returns to judge all mankind, as well as the angelic beings.

One...*one*...of the purposes of the opening chapters of Genesis is to provide a framework of symbols the rest of the Scriptures draw from.

Another is to serve as a polemic against Egyptian and Babylonian cosmologies. In other words, it wasn't the Annunaki or Egyptian gods who created us, but Yahweh...the God of Israel. It was a revolutionary counter claim...and one that the newly freed nation of Hebrews could rally around in their understanding of themselves and of their God and the creation.

Also, I don't believe Moses was being wholly symbolic in his storytelling. I think Adam and Eve were literal people. But, I believe they were not the original humans. Rather, they were injected into the middle of the human story...through special creation, however. Just as described in Genesis 2. Adam was intended to serve as a representative of all men...sort of the Messiah of mankind. But he failed and instead of Adam leading mankind into an eventual state of glorification, another was promised. Christ is that other.

Originally posted by Nichiren
This doesn't make sense to me....

...There are many more statements that boggle my mind.

This fact does not in any way signify the falsehood of Genesis. Your boggling mind should serve as no safe haven from the claims of ANY text, including the text of Scripture. A lack of understanding of a given line of thought doesn't mean that line of thought is invalid or wrong.

It MAY indicate you don't have the background to resolve the symbolic meaning of the text. You may not be able to connect all the points to form a whole picture. You may be relying on biased, mistaken, or prejudiced information from other sources that cloud your view of these passages. You may just simply be making assumptions about the text that just aren't correct in any technical or theological sense.

Originally posted by Nichiren
I'm here to learn and when I hear a logical explanation I'm willing to listen & accept.

I'm highly skeptical of that.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
I was thinking, just a random thought I had one day, that the bible is a spell book.

It's not a spell book, per se, but you're closer than you think.

The liturgy is a powerful thing. The music, hymns, prayer, communion, and all the rest actually has an effect over time and throughout history.

Take note of the singing of the priests before the battles in the Bible. That power is still on tap today for those in the know.

Treat it like just a Sunday morning ritual and with zero faith and you get zero back, however. Scoff at it and say it's meaningless or doesn't do anything and you'll get nothing, as well.

Also, the Psalms are prescribed prayers...prayers that churches and individuals all over the world pray every Sunday (with individuals praying every day). You should read each Psalm to see what some of us are up to. You will probably be mortified and offended.

Your problem is you are trying to read it as one would a normal book. Moses the author Genesis, wrote down what he had seen in a vision. There are several of the books in the bible where people wrote down what they had seen in visions but didn't fully understand what they were seeing.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I mean an All-Powerful All-Knowing God plants a tree that bears fruit, fruit he doesn't want people to eat... Where does he plant it? Why right out in the garden where the people live of course. Not to mention the fact the fruit is supposed to let Adam and Eve know the difference between good and evil (someone explain how Evil can exist with an All-Powerful GOOD God running around) so essentially the fruit lets you Deny Ignorance

They were surrounded by all the other fruit bearing trees for food. They weren't starving. Yes, it was placed there in the Garden, probably set apart from the other trees and not too far from the Tree of Life. This was a test...a crossroads...the choice that would determine the fate of humanity. Adam chose badly.

The tree wasn't mere knowledge of good things versus bad things. Adam already had that in the edict to avoid that fruit. He knew THAT was evil and that the fruit from the Tree of Life was good. So it wasn't simple knowledge. It was the self-determination of what would be good and what would be evil. Self-determination, rather than God's determining of what would be good and evil.

Eating from that tree meant rebellion against God's order and Adam's intended destiny to take care of the Garden and eventually the rest of the world. The act of taking from this tree was itself an act of self-determination and a turning of his back to God's law.

The Tree of Life, on the other hand, meant immortality and eventual glorification. The renewal of the cosmos, growing into high humanity, and real union with the Creator and all that entails. Adam made his decision and it affects all of us to this day. After Adam ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he (and we) was barred from the Tree of Life.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Praetorian Guard]

I see that most of you concerns appear to have already been addressed, so I'm just going to comment on this...

Originally posted by Nichiren
Age of earth 4.54 billion years.
Star found in our galaxy 13.2 billion years.

The way to measure a star is analogous to carbon-14 dating, or so says your source.

Carbon 14 dating is a load of crap for sure. For an example of what I mean, according to the Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637, shells of living snails were carbon dated, and the result was they were 23 000 years old...so either these snails were of the clan Mcleod (immortal) or carbon 14 dating is grossly inaccurate.

So if carbon 14 dating is inaccurate it stands to reason that their star dating technique (being analogous) is also inaccurate.

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

Originally posted by Nichiren
I'm here to learn and when I hear a logical explanation I'm willing to listen & accept.

I'm highly skeptical of that.

You shouldn't be.

reply to post by the siren

For the first time, the age dating involved both radioactive elements in combination with the three other neutron-capture elements europium, osmium, and iridium.
"Until now, it has not been possible to measure more than a single cosmic clock for a star. Now, however, we have managed to make six measurements in this one star"," says Frebel.

Ever since the star was born, these "clocks" have ticked away over the eons, unaffected by the turbulent history of the Milky Way. They now read 13.2 billion years.
The Universe being 13.7 billion years old, this star clearly formed very early in the life of our own Galaxy, which must also formed very soon after the Big Bang.
Source: European Southern Observatory (ESO)

Did you read the link to the end? Six (6) different methodes were used. Carbon-14 dating was not involved.

Thank you for your feedback. I need to attend a meeting and will respond to your posts soon.

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by the siren

 

Did you read the link to the end? Six (6) different methodes were used. Carbon-14 dating was not involved.

From your source...

"Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star", the lead author of the paper reporting the results, Anna Frebel, explains. "This requires measuring very precisely the abundance of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium, a feat only the largest telescopes such as ESO's VLT can achieve."

This technique is analogous to the carbon-14 dating method that has been so successful in archaeology over time spans of up to a few tens of thousands of years. In astronomy, however, this technique must obviously be applied to vastly longer timescales.

Regardless, If a method involves measuring how much of a substance is left and the degree at which it degrades, then in order for it to be accurate, they need to know how much of that substance was present in the first place (but they can't because they were never there for the inception).
They also need to take into account how external events can have an effect on that substance (like a meteor hitting the star or whatever), but they have no idea what occurred because they have not been around for the lifespan of the star.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Thank you for your post. I too have many questions about the accuracy of the Bible, but will reserve final judgement until I have a better understanding of the book.

reply to post by KSPigpen


Thank you. I'm looking forward to broadening my knowledge about the bible.

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
I think the bible can be read in different regards with different interpretations.

Yes, I think that's the crux of the matter in general. When it comes to scientific facts though there is no wiggle room.

reply to post by KingAtlas


I agree. The metaphysical aspects are definitely there.