Genesis was written by biased men.

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

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.

Symbolic it may be, but who is to decipher the meaning correctly? Are you claiming to know? See, that's why I prefer the literal scientific method that is verifiable and reproducible.

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

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.

Here is another conundrum for me. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient He knew that planting the tree of knowledge would result in the serpent making the move. He also knew that Eve wasn't able to resist the temptation.

I asked in my first post: why did God set up his own children for failure and then acts totally surprised?

Free will doesn't apply, because God knew what He set in motion by planting the tree.

I'm looking forward to reading your replies.

HOR AL-HAMMAR garden of Eden

and the Marsh Arabs,

img.metro.co.uk...

Tree

blog.lib.umn.edu...

www.highbeam.com...

books.google.com... ei=GIm2SojSNJHSNYGbsNoO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Great pictures here.

www.laputanlogic.com...

[edit on 033030p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]

All the lands were sea...
Gilimma bound reeds upon the face of the waters,
He formed soil and poured it out beside the reeds.
He filled in a dike by the side of the sea,
He made a swamp, he formed a marsh
and he brought it into existence,
Reeds he formed, trees he created.

Sumerian

9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Bible

Sacred trees.



www.kingofthejunglellc.com...

[edit on 033030p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Which way is it?

i think the one in genesis 2 is an ish(shah).
www.blueletterbible.org...

i haven't decided if an ish is a human or not. there are male ish too. and they appear to be different than adams. references to ish and adam are in the same sentence and appear to be differently referred to. it's weird..

i'm thinking the ish is a reference to the LILith. whereas the first woman, called "a female" in the first chapter, is the actual Eve. but the authors assumed it was all the same account or the translators did and ended up calling the Lilith by the name of the first Eve and the first Eve by the less than descriptive term "female", which is not ish but
nĕqebah
www.blueletterbible.org...

notice both words are translated to woman, thusly



'ishshah
Pronunciation
ish·shä' (Key)
feminine noun
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) woman, wife, female
a) woman (opposite of man)
b) wife (woman married to a man)
c) female (of animals)
d) each, every (pronoun)



nĕqebah
Pronunciation
nek·ā·bä' (Key)
feminine noun
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) female
a) woman, female child
b) female animal

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

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.

Correct, but a line of thought is invalid if it defies logic IMHO. That's how I operate. Once we leave that path we open the gate to any kind of speculation, superstition, interpretation, circular logic and ambiguity.

Also, anybody can "claim" anything. The question is: can you back it up with any kind of verifiable data?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Not sure I grasp your point. Sorry.

Originally posted by the siren
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.

That article was actually about anomalous radiocarbon ages.

www.sciencemag.org...

Science 16 August 1963:
Vol. 141. no. 3581, pp. 634 - 637
DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3581.634


Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells
M. L. Keith 1 and G. M. Anderson 1

1 Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14-activity of ancient fresh-water shell indeterminate, but within limits. Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.

reply to post by Nichiren


You going to have to go back and read it again, But in this light. The very ancients writing of any Hebrew document dating in the period that Genesis was written was done as follows.

They use to first offer a summary of the events. Then go back and explain them in more detail. This is why you getting all confused as to what’s being said. There’s no contradiction.

So If I was you, I would question the sources of your information and really take a 2nd look at what you believing and trusting in? These so called critics don’t do simple checks to understand the times but are quick to offer their 2 cents worth. Please don’t fall into the same trap.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by SharkBait]

reply to post by Nichiren


I think you’re right. It’s just a story.... written by hill tribes to explain things that go bump in the night. ( kinda on the same level of Thor’s hammer causing thunder-now we know what causes thunder and Thor no longer exists as a god). Oh, and to justify the slaughter of their enemies and the taking of slaves, and the right to make women property (after all, Eve was to blame for the fall).

Now, about that Adam and Eve thingie....
The tree served a purpose for the writers of the Genesis story. It provided an easy answer to the question of why mankind died aged and died. . To the Genesis writers, it made perfect sense. Man and woman had angered their god, therefore they could not live forever. But, the writers didn’t understand the problems they created with this solution. It kinda puts a nasty spin on God’s omnipotence. Did He not know what was going to happen? Why was the tree there ?
So they would eat from it and God would throw them out. Man wants to live forever, therefore God and afterlife.

go to this page and click on the little number 5347 by the word female
in the verse (genesis 1:27), which results in nĕqebah

tiny.cc...

then go to this page and click on the little number 802 by the word woman in the verse (genesis 2:22), which results in 'ishshah

tiny.cc...

reply to post by SharkBait


I follow my own drummer and don't need to rely on any critics of the Bible. I just have trouble with its logic. It seems you are well equipped to explain this:

reply to post by Nichiren

Originally posted by Nichiren

Here is another conundrum for me. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient He knew that planting the tree of knowledge would result in the serpent making the move. He also knew that Eve wasn't able to resist the temptation.

I asked in my first post: why did God set up his own children for failure and then acts totally surprised?

I'd be curious how Christians would answer this, though I have a hunch that they will try to explain it away as test (the OT God loved to test the faith of his believers) which Eve and then Adam failed miserably. From my point of view the explanation is simple, if you ask yourself: what is the purpose of this particular story? Well, it explains how sin came to be and who's to blame for it (the serpent, Eve, Adam) in that order of gravity. Of course it was mighty convenient that the people of that time could point fingers at Eve for being seduced and then seducing herself Adam, because that was used (and is still being used in some fundamentalist churches) to treat women less than men and to subdue them to men's will.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Damn them facts LOL. Thank you.

reply to post by Pauligirl


To answer your questions as to how God thinks and the reason he does something, I would think that’s a little above us.

But I can say that in Gods word, he gave us the ability to accept or reject him. This has nothing to do with Adam and Eve but it has got everything to do with what you and I do. Its really up to you to decide what you want to do. You don’t have to accept God or Jesus, you have that right, the Bible says so.

With Adam and Eve –its all about Obedience. Its was a simple instruction. If you wanted God to control the situation we would not be free and have the will power to make up our own destination. Many people want God to control them like puppets and then will blame God for things that go wrong.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by SharkBait]

reply to post by WalterRatlos


I hear you, but when you go back and follow the trail of sin you'd end up with that funny tree again. The question for me is: why did God plant the Tree of Knowledge, knowing it would surely introduce sin to the world?

sin was the name of the moon god.

Sin was also a reference to
"clay"

the translation of it in the referenced verses in genesis 1 and 2 is
chatta'ah

reply to post by Pauligirl


Sounds plausible to me, but what about the divine part of the Scripture? Did divinity fail logic at that point or is logic highly overrated?

I have a feeling it all boils down to having blind faith in the Scripture.

reply to post by Nichiren


To answer your questions as to how God thinks and the reason he does something, I would think that’s a little above us.

But I can say that in Gods word, he gave us the ability to accept or reject him. This has nothing to do with Adam and Eve but it has got everything to do with what you and I do. Its really up to you to decide what you want to do. You don’t have to accept God or Jesus, you have that right, the Bible says so.

With Adam and Eve –its all about Obedience. Its was a simple instruction. If you wanted God to control the situation we would not be free and have the will power to make up our own destination. Many people want God to control them like puppets and then will blame God for things that go wrong.