Adam and his wife died physically after eating the Forbidden Fruit. Genesis 2:17 is Literal.

[Hockeycowboy]

Citing a vague interpretation of scripture does not support your paranoid conclusions about government turning on all forms of religion.

Did you even read the description the Bible gives of the Prostitute in Revelation chaps.17 & 18?

I bet you haven’t. If you had, you’d see how well the description fits religion. Religious thinking which has misrepresented God for eons.

Still, you belittle.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I've read some variation of that on RF dozens of times, and it always leaves me slack-jawed. What valuable lessons are they talking about?

Naive kids are left in a garden with a malicious snake, eat a forbidden apple, and suffer undesirable consequences including the loss of paradise and immortality. What important lesson is a child old enough to understand that story going to learn that he doesn't already know? He already knows about orders, temptations, and that there can be consequences for indulging in them.

Or the flood story. Or the Tower of Babel story. Do you see important lessons there as well? I don't see any lessons in the flood story beyond the same "if you don't obey, there are consequences" or in the tower story other than to not strive to build higher.

The lessons the Genesis myths teach is that man is bad and repeatedly deserves severe punishment, and I find no value there. The humanist equivalent is that man has the potential for nobility and needs education and opportunity to develop that potential. The two messages generate tangible differences in how we view and treat people.

You're stretching. The value of words is to read them and get an idea, not get an idea and then try to make the words fit them. If one takes the liberty to change the meanings of words like that, then the Bible can be said to say whatever one chooses that it should say. How about we do the same for God and resurrection. Let's just say that God refers to man's potential to achieve greatness and resurrection was not about a person but about Greco-Roman culture, which disappeared from the west for "three days," which means the Middle Ages when the Arabs kept it until it was resurrected in the West.

You're doing it again. Hanging means suspended from above. It is inaccurate. The earth is neither hanging from above nor resting on pillars. The Bible writers' world was limited to one in which gravity pulls everything downward, and so things were either held up or fell down. They had no concept of the force that pulls down puling from the side (from the sun), so they had it pulling the earth downward, hence the need for pillars below or suspension from above.

It so much easier for the unbeliever, who doesn't need to do what the believer does to reconcile scripture with reality. He can just do as I did here, and say that they were unknowing, speculated, and got it wrong.

You're trying to reconcile the error again with another maybe/what if. What if it was referring to people and not the planet. Maybe it was referring to soil. If you allow yourself that much latitude, the words have no meaning but what you choose to give them. Like I said, we get should get meaning from the words, not assign meaning to them not intended by their authors.

What if you did the same with the words you are reading now? 'Maybe by meaning he meant spirit and by author's intention he meant their hidden thoughts.' If you start doing that, my message to you will evaporate for you, and what you will see instead is your own message in my words.

You have to look at the context, of course.

I agree with what you said to Indigo; I see no “lessons” that are taught, believing it is allegory.

But back to your responses to me… the Bible basically calls itself a test to people, at Hebrews 4:12.

It says it is “able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart”; how can an inanimate book do that? By the way people, who read it, respond to it. They reveal themselves.
Jesus did the same thing, in John 6, by telling those listening to him, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part with me.”
Did he mean literally? Of course not! (Don’t tell the Catholics!)
But such a statement / tactic, weeded out the insincere.

So, the Hebrew & Greek Scriptures are designed to expose the thinking of people, reveal their motives.
If this site is any indication, the Bible is accomplishing that!

But the Bible also says at 2 Timothy 3:16,17… “All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

If the Bible didn’t express a particular viewpoint, ie., if it presented contradictory ideas, it couldn’t be used for “setting things straight.”

Of course accurately understanding it, according to Jesus (Luke 10:21), that requires having God‘s help. I.e., Jehovah’s. I.e., Yahweh’s. (No trinitarian god accepted.)

So much has been twisted, about it! Clear teachings, (I mean crystal clear), totally corrupted!

I think you’d be amazed.

Maybe later we can discuss a couple.

Take care.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you even read the description the Bible gives of the Prostitute in Revelation chaps.17 & 18?

I have read and studied the entire Bible many times
Again . . .

Citing a vague interpretation of scripture does not support your paranoid conclusions about government turning on all forms of religion.

Actually I prefer the interpretation of the Book of Revelation as referring to Rome. It fits the time and politics of the time.

I bet you haven’t. If you had, you’d see how well the description fits religion. Religious thinking which has misrepresented God for eons.

Over the millennia many different interpretations are proposed to suit what people wnt to believe.

Still, you belittle.

Yes , , , including many paranoid later day interpretations.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have read and studied the entire Bible many times

Well, great! Then I ask you: what is God’s Kingdom?

Actually I prefer the interpretation of the Book of Revelation as referring to Rome.

Do you mean the Harlot?
(Revelation speaks of much.)
If it applies to Rome, then how is Rome guilty of the “blood… of all those slain on the Earth”? Revelation 18:24

People were being killed, way before Rome was even an entity.

Yes , , , including many paranoid later day interpretations.

Regarding “later day”, the Bible itself says that “in the final part of the days, accurate knowledge [of Daniel’s secret words] would become abundant.” - Daniel 12:4,8-10

Such enlightenment is happening among Jehovah’s people in these Last Days!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree with what you said to Indigo; I see no “lessons” that are taught, believing it is allegory.

I was referring to myths specifically, which I told her I see as explanations for why the world appeared as it did to them despite having a tri-omni god in their corner.

I do not consider the myths metaphors or allegories, which are literary forms wherein symbols are used to stand in for known people and events. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory. Flimnap substitutes for Walpole, and his rope dancing represents what a British prime minister has to do the remain in office.

These myths aren't that at all. Nor are they deep truths nor valuable life lessons. They're best guesses at why reality is how it appears. I explained how that applied to the Garden myth, the flood myth, and the Tower myth.

Interestingly, whenever I post that interpretation of what those stories are and give a very compelling argument which might not be correct but also clearly might be, it leads to no comments at all - no attempt to explain why that's wrong or even a comment about it being a reasonable perspective to consider. And that includes the unbelievers, who have no stake in trying to make the stories seem like they came for a deity or say anything important.

So, the Hebrew & Greek Scriptures are designed to expose the thinking of people, reveal their motives.

I don't see that either. There is nothing that I got from any of those stories that isn't easily acquired knowledge, and people who read the Bible have no more success understanding the motives of others than those who learn that from parents or life experience.

If the Bible didn’t express a particular viewpoint, ie., if it presented contradictory ideas, it couldn’t be used for “setting things straight.”

But it does present contradictory viewpoints and is often ambiguous (either of two meanings is possible) or vague (has no clear meaning at all). It also contains mistakes such as attributing human motives to a demonic influence, hence exorcisms, which help about as little as rain dances and for the same reason.

Of course accurately understanding it, according to Jesus (Luke 10:21), that requires having God‘s help. I.e., Jehovah’s. I.e., Yahweh’s.

You probably know that that means nothing to an unbeliever. I believe that I understand the Bible about as accurately as it can be understood. Believers go beyond what the words say. I recall a thread in which three believers gave completely different interpretations of what appears to be a story of a deity letting a demon toy with a man's life for no apparent reason. They would all say that they had God's help understanding the words, but they all had different understandings.

And does that make sense what you wrote? Here's a book allegedly authored by a deity through human proxies to tell mankind about itself, yet he needs special help to understand it.

In my opinion, a better understanding consistent with human nature and invoking no supernaturalism is that it is a hodgepodge of ideas translated from ancient languages from assorted authors who didn't consult with one another, so naturally it turned out like it did - self-contradictory, vague and ambiguous - and can be interpreted pretty much however one wants, each interpreter claiming to have God's help as you called it, and telling other believers with different understandings that they're wrong and unbelievers that they're unqualified to offer a contradictory opinion.

So much has been twisted, about it! Clear teachings, (I mean crystal clear), totally corrupted! I think you’d be amazed. Maybe later we can discuss a couple.

I'm very familiar with the Bible and many of the things believers have said about it from my years as a Christian as well as a veteran of these threads.

Take care.

Thanks, amigo. You too, and best wishes to your family.

 

[jimb]

You have to look at the context, of course.

I agree with what you said to Indigo; I see no “lessons” that are taught, believing it is allegory.

But back to your responses to me… the Bible basically calls itself a test to people, at Hebrews 4:12.

It says it is “able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart”; how can an inanimate book do that? By the way people, who read it, respond to it. They reveal themselves.
Jesus did the same thing, in John 6, by telling those listening to him, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part with me.”
Did he mean literally? Of course not! (Don’t tell the Catholics!)
But such a statement / tactic, weeded out the insincere.

So, the Hebrew & Greek Scriptures are designed to expose the thinking of people, reveal their motives.
If this site is any indication, the Bible is accomplishing that!

But the Bible also says at 2 Timothy 3:16,17… “All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

If the Bible didn’t express a particular viewpoint, ie., if it presented contradictory ideas, it couldn’t be used for “setting things straight.”

Of course accurately understanding it, according to Jesus (Luke 10:21), that requires having God‘s help. I.e., Jehovah’s. I.e., Yahweh’s. (No trinitarian god accepted.)

So much has been twisted, about it! Clear teachings, (I mean crystal clear), totally corrupted!

I think you’d be amazed.

Maybe later we can discuss a couple.

Take care.

If you deny "a trinitarian god" [sic], you need to read the Bible more carefully. Accurately understanding what the Bible says requires having God‘s help.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, great! Then I ask you: what is God’s Kingdom?

Do you mean the Harlot?
(Revelation speaks of much.)
If it applies to Rome, then how is Rome guilty of the “blood… of all those slain on the Earth”? Revelation 18:24

People were being killed, way before Rome was even an entity.

Yes in history and today there has always been bloody tribal wars, but the concerns of the Hebrews at the time was the bloody persecution and ethnic cleansing of Hebrews by Rome,

Regarding “later day”, the Bible itself says that “in the final part of the days, accurate knowledge [of Daniel’s secret words] would become abundant.” - Daniel 12:4,8-10

Such enlightenment is happening among Jehovah’s people in these Last Days!

Many times in the past millennia Christians have interpreted the 'Last Days,' End of the world scenarios and the return of Christ and nothing happened as they claimed. Many at the time believed the end was within the living generation at the time.

The prophecies related to Rome still fit best related to the world at the time of Christ,

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, great! Then I ask you: what is God’s Kingdom?

Do you mean the Harlot?
(Revelation speaks of much.)
If it applies to Rome, then how is Rome guilty of the “blood… of all those slain on the Earth”? Revelation 18:24

People were being killed, way before Rome was even an entity.


Regarding “later day”, the Bible itself says that “in the final part of the days, accurate knowledge [of Daniel’s secret words] would become abundant.” - Daniel 12:4,8-10

Such enlightenment is happening among Jehovah’s people in these Last Days!

Many times in the past millennia Christians have interpreted the 'Last Days,' End of the world scenarios and the return of Christ and nothing happened as they claimed. Many at the time believed the end was within the living generation at the time.

When all these interpretations fail they will shuffle the deck , and try again and fail again. The last Days claims will go on another millennia.

The prophecies related to Rome still fit best related to the world at the time of Christ,

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you deny "a trinitarian god" [sic], you need to read the Bible more carefully.

I have, very carefully.

I suggest that you need to. Jesus worshipped his Father (John 4:23; John 20:17). As a Christian, ie., follower of Christ, so do I.

Accurately understanding what the Bible says requires having God‘s help.

Yes, you’re right.

At Luke 10:21, Jesus said, “ I publicly praise You, Father,… because You have hidden these things from the Wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.”

Notice, Jesus doesn’t do that. But his Father, “the only true God” (Jesus’ words @ John 17:3), does reveal truth; this is who I worship: Jesus’ God.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I have already done that in detail and specifics, I may respond with more but at present you have have failed to respond to problem I described.

One point you describe the Hebrew tribes as coming to the Levant in ~1500 BCE. from the Indus Valley. There is overwhelming archeological, historical, genetic linguistic, and cultural evidence that the Hebrews have been Canaanite tribes older than 3000 BCE, and their language, culture and religion evolved from Canaanite language, culture and beliefs. Even the Pentateuch contains Canaanite/Ugarit, Sumerian direct influence.

There is also a very close relationship between the Canaanite tribes including Hebrews with Egypt going back to before 3000 BCE.

I agree with you that there is evidence of the existence of Hebrews before 1500 BCE. There are different views regarding their origins in Canaan. I am familiar with one view but I don't think it is convincing. What you consider to be overwhelming evidence, I do not find. I have read in detail five views on the Exodus by Mark D Jansen and he discusses five different views but none of them talks about any internal development of the Hebrews from Canaanites. So, I think there is some disconnect either I am not understanding what you are saying or perhaps there is some other matter which I do not understand.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Are you referring to oppressive regies like the Communists of the 20th century, who tried to outlaw religion? If so, they didn't succeed in eliminating it. They just drove it underground.

But if you're talking about something more like America, the government is not the enemy of religion, although the theocratic Christians see it in those terms. Refusal to support their religion is understood as being its enemy by that faction.

But it is evaporating away as the religious surveys of the last 35 years show us. Every year, fewer people identify as religious or Christians and more as nones, which includes an assortment of types including the "I'm spiritual, not religious" types

In America, they substituted humanism for religion in government in 1789. It's worked well, but is now under siege from both the theocratic conservatives and MAGA, who between them have little regard for church-state separation, egalitarianism, the rule of law, and democracy itself.

I don't know what you mean by spiritualism, especially when you posture it as the or an alternative to hedonism. In my estimation, what I define as spirituality is not the business of government. For me, spirituality is an attitude toward nature and life. It is a warm sense of connection and belonging (opposite: alienation) generally associated with some degree and combination of a sense of awe, mystery, and gratitude.

Sometimes, hedonism means the pursuit of pleasure, and sometimes, it means the pursuit of selfish pleasure and perhaps a dissolute and destructive lifestyle. If you mean the latter, religion (I'm focusing on American Christianity, because that's what I know best and what religion in America generally refers to) doesn't prevent that.

You seem to be influenced by such religious ideas, although your name suggests that you are neither American nor Christian (does "from India" mean you mostly have lived there, or that you began life there?). If you have assimilated Christianity as I am used to it from experience a as Christian in my youth, from following the news thereafter, and from posting on RF and a now defunct competitor for a decade before joining this site in 2017, then pleasure and the pursuit of same are considered selfish.

I understand that as a message that you are not to think about what you want or enjoy and turn your attention to obedience to the church and to devote your life and resources to promoting its agenda to spread and accrue wealth and societal hegemony. So, forget that vacation and give more to the church, and if you don't, you're being an immoral hedonist.

But I believe in the pursuit of pleasure, which doesn't exclude moral and charitable behavior. It is not selfish hedonism, although the religious might disagree.

One consequence of that attitude is that we didn't have children (my wife and I met after I left Christianity), which made it possible to travel to exotic locations twice a year, take weekends out of town in hotels to see three Grateful Dead shows on Fri/Sat/Sun every other month, frequently perform musically with my wife at night after work on an average of three times a month, eat out every day, and retire early.

My pastor before I left his religion would have disapproved for the reasons I just gave. He would have rather seen me turn those hours to religious pursuits and those dollars to his church, and to create more children, the company of which I don't care for.

Anyway, replacing religion in my life with atheistic humanism was a big improvement, and if I extrapolate that across a nation, I see a net benefit. I prefer humanist thought and moral values, which have made me a little better person than I was as a Christian. I see no loss there, but I do see a net societal gain.

I was thinking more like America, where the religion evaporates. I would like to think that religion will be replaced by some sense of egalitarianism but I do not see that happening with inequality increasing by the day. Regarding spirituality, I understand spirituality in the sense of connectedness with other human beings. When one begins to feel a sense of empathy with others that is what I mean by spiritualism. To my mind there is a zero-sum game between one's own consumption and consumption by the lesser privileged. So, no matter how much we try to say that it is possible to have inequality along with empathy, I am more convinced by Christ saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the needle hole than for a rich man to attain heaven. So, I think this mirage that you have of inequality with empathy is built upon exploitation of the developing countries, it is only because of the huge amount of wealth pouring into America that it is possible to hold such views.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you that there is evidence of the existence of Hebrews before 1500 BCE. There are different views regarding their origins in Canaan.

Basically not true among the academic archeologists and historians. There is no question based on the evidence of the origin of the Hebrews in the Levant. You need to specifically cite academic sources that support any other origin scenario.

The only options proposed for the history of the Hebrews is the fundamentalist view of Hebrews separate from Canaanites, but the entire ancestry in the Levant, versus the documented history of Hebrews as a Canaanite tribe going back to before 3000 BCE,

I am familiar with one view but I don't think it is convincing. What you consider to be overwhelming evidence, I do not find. I have read in detail five views on the Exodus by Mark D Jansen and he discusses five different views but none of them talks about any internal development of the Hebrews from Canaanites. So, I think there is some disconnect either I am not understanding what you are saying or perhaps there is some other matter which I do not understand.

I reviewed Jensen's work. He is a traditional fundamentalist theologian, and believes in a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch and Exodus. Like many fundamentalist Christians he minimizes or even negates the link of Hebrews as Canaanite tribes, but nonetheless proposes a history of the Hebrews in the Levant and a literal interpretation of Exodus as an Exodus from Egypt. His writings do not remotely support an Exodus from the Indus River Valley.

If you believe Jensen describes any other option concerning Exodus please cite specifically.

It is the overwhelming archeological, historical, cultural, genetic, and linguistic direct link between Canaanites and Hebrews. The link is also directly related to a relationship with Egypt. There is absolutely no such evidence of any relationship with the Indus Valley.

 

[Betho_br]

Many times in the past millennia Christians have interpreted the 'Last Days,' End of the world scenarios and the return of Christ and nothing happened as they claimed. Many at the time believed the end was within the living generation at the time.

When all these interpretations fail they will shuffle the deck , and try again and fail again. The last Days claims will go on another millennia.

The prophecies related to Rome still fit best related to the world at the time of Christ,

Most scholars propose that the letter to the Romans was written in late 55, 56 or 57. Others propose early 58 or 55, while Luedemann argues for an earlier date, such as 51/52 (or 54/55), following of Knox, who proposes 53/54.

Romans 1:8 King James Version
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 10:18 King James Version
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Matthew 24:14 King James Version
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Luke 21:20 New International Version
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.


It seems to make sense to me...

 

[shunyadragon]

Most scholars propose that the letter to the Romans was written in late 55, 56 or 57. Others propose early 58 or 55, while Luedemann argues for an earlier date, such as 51/52 (or 54/55), following of Knox, who proposes 53/54.

Romans 1:8 King James Version
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 10:18 King James Version
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Matthew 24:14 King James Version
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Luke 21:20 New International Version
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

The whole world was the KNOWN WORLD at the time it was written.

It seems to make sense to me...

Every one of the conflicting ancient tribal beliefs make sense to those who believe

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have, very carefully. I suggest that you need to. Jesus worshipped his Father

That was your response to another poster's comment, "If you deny "a trinitarian god" [sic], you need to read the Bible more carefully. Accurately understanding what the Bible says requires having God‘s help."

That's nice and timely illustration of that to which I referred when I wrote, "I recall a thread in which three believers gave completely different interpretations of what appears to be a story of a deity letting a demon toy with a man's life for no apparent reason. They would all say that they had God's help understanding the words, but they all had different understandings."

This is a typical theological dispute caused by ambiguous and contradictory scripture. It's easy to argue either side of this disagreement. My answer is that neither of you can claim to be correct. You have equal claim to being correct despite having mutually exclusive ideas on the matter.

I would like to think that religion will be replaced by some sense of egalitarianism

Me, too. There's room for egalitarian religions, too. I find the polytheists more in tune with my own humanistic values, which include egalitarianism.

But earlier, you wrote, "If [religion] is substituted by spiritualism then it would be good for this world." It seems you used spiritualism and egalitarianism synonymously. I try to avoid most religious words. I don't distance myself from spirituality, but I do from spirits, and wouldn't use the word spiritualism where I meant egalitarianism, nor spiritualism where I meant spirituality.

I also don't use the word evil because of its religious implications. Malice works fine.

Another poster told me that he calls the mystery of the universe "God." I told him that I call that the mystery of the universe. Why introduce words from religions that bring so much baggage with them?

I do not see that happening with inequality increasing by the day.

I don't know if that's correct or not, but it might be. If so, it's due to anti-humanistic efforts in the world coming from the largest religions like American Christianity and Afghani Islam (both misogynistic), antidemocratic and authoritarian proclivities (MAGA, Putin), and those trying to concentrate wealth, power, and privilege while clamoring for deregulation while exploiting people and desecrating the environment. None of those is interested equality or equity, but humanism fights for that. It's fighting for women's reproductive freedom and LGTBQ+ equity, for example, against the forces I just enumerated.

I understand spirituality in the sense of connectedness with other human beings

So do I, and more - all of nature, which is antithetical to Abrahamism, which prioritizes unseen entities in unseen domains over nature, and distracts attention from the here and now to the there and then - a disconnectedness to nature that is the exact opposite of spirituality as I've described it, and not surprisingly, it invokes spirits: god, angel, and demons. These are ideas that I believe have been destructive to Western culture. Look at these words. Look at what their religion teaches them:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

When one begins to feel a sense of empathy with others that is what I mean by spiritualism.

Then you won't be understood by most. If you mean empathy, I suggest that you say empathy. As soon as you introduce the word spiritualism, you're suggesting something else, generally involving spirits. I didn't understand what you meant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Accurately understanding what the Bible says requires having God‘s help.

^ so convenient

 

[wellwisher]

Adam and his wife died *physically* after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. Moreover, it was on that very day...

Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

• Day means Day, as in twenty-four hours or less.
• Surely Die means Surely Die, as in physical death.

As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the above verse.

Both Christians and Non-Christians alike will take away and add words to the verse to make it state something it does not.

Some examples include...

• Spiritual Death: Adam and his wife 'died Spiritually'.
• Begin to Age: The 'aging process' for Adam and his wife 'began ticking'.
• Day is a Thousand Years: Adam and his wife 'died within a thousand-year timeframe'.

Note that taking away and adding to the Word of God is of course a very big no-no, yet everyone does it with Genesis 2:17.

There is no need however, to alter the verse. Genesis 2:17 agrees with the entire Bible when taken literally.

In fact, it is the *only* way in which it does!

The Bible also tells the story of Adam and Eve's children; Cain and Abel, and then their third son Seth. What shall surely die was their innocence, not their physical body. They still were alive, after that day to have three children, but not in paradise.

Once they ate of tree of knowledge of good and evil, they both noticed they were naked and tried to coverup. They noticed naked because the law of good and evil, they had learned from Satan, said naked was taboo. Before they learned that law; before they ate from the tree, they did not know what naked was in terms of a value judgment. They still were innocent like a baby or toddler, who runs around naked and has fun. But once they learned law of good and evil, they were suddenly full of worries, due to the law telling them all the things to worry about and avoid.

As a more adult analogy, in war, a soldier may have to kill to survive. That first kill changes you forever; hardened by repressed natural guilt, that can then, for many, turn into psychological problems. The sense of their original innocence, just moments before, is lost, and you can never put that genie back in the bottle. Part of you dies.

In terms of Adam and Eve, it was like they had entered adolescence, now with raging hormones, need to repress, more rules, self consciousness, and the loss of those simpler times of their youth. In terms of evolution, this symbolized the adolescence of humanity, where more rules start to apply. Adam and Eve marry and have two children, who themselves lose their innocence; Cain kills Abel and Cain is exiled. Cain was the first physical death and loss associated with Adam and Eve, which further changes Adam and Eve; spiritual loss and now human loss of a child.

Cain was a tiler of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. When Cain killed Abel, this symbolized that farming had superseded migratory herding. This suggest the adolescence of humanity, was the beginning of civilization, with the loss of natural instinct; childhood of humanity, being associated with the hunters, gatherers and herders. That was Adam and Eve in paradise instinctively living off the abundance of nature.

The modern human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is older and is the original center that is also common to animals. It has instincts of each species, which in the case of humans is human nature; collective unconscious mind.The symbolism of Adam and Eve is about a secondary center or ego that appears; conscious mind, that can separate from the inner self and has will and choice apart from the inner self.

Whereas the inner self is innate due to DNA; natural brain firmware that evolved over eons, the ego is like an empty vessel at brith, evolves through external learning; tree of knowledge is external learning, such as good and evil. The Adam and Eve symbolism is also about the consolidation of this ego secondary center, that could now repress natural instinct; Cain kills Abel. Adam and Eve symbolize the modern man and woman with two centers of consciousness, which by dating civilization, the ego is only about 6-10k years old. The human inner self is over 1 million years old. DNA evidence may not show this ego secondary, since its is neural addendum, due to consciousness being more the sum of its DNA part. Consciousness can interact with reality, altering the brain; memory and behavior, from the outside, adding extra adaptive intelligence beyond what is written by the DNA.

If we had two children; twins, and put one in a primitive tribe and the other in a nurturing modern environment, both woke have the same inner self, but the egos will develop differently, with the primitive child more attuned to their inner self and civilized child more slanted to the ego side. When the ego appears, there was drift away from the inner self in favor of the ego; loss of the age of innocence.

 

[jimb]

I have, very carefully.

I suggest that you need to. Jesus worshipped his Father (John 4:23; John 20:17). As a Christian, ie., follower of Christ, so do I.

Yes, you’re right.

At Luke 10:21, Jesus said, “ I publicly praise You, Father,… because You have hidden these things from the Wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.”

Notice, Jesus doesn’t do that. But his Father, “the only true God” (Jesus’ words @ John 17:3), does reveal truth; this is who I worship: Jesus’ God.

Take care, my cousin.

I (and many, many others) have read the Bible very carefully. Personally, I have read the Bible many times and the New Testament many, many times. Here are some facts...

Jesus, as a man, worshipped His Father. The same can be said of all Jews and Christians.

Before He became a living human, He was in heaven. He created the earth -- Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3.

After He was resurrected He returned to heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:20-24, "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human, for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in its own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power."

You must understand that when the gospels describe Jesus, they are describing Him during His temporary incarnation as a human. He was fully God before He came to earth and is fully God after His resurrection.

John 1:1-4, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. [Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.] What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people."

Hebrews 1:8, "But of the Son He [God the Father] says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom".

 

[shunyadragon]

If you deny "a trinitarian god" [sic], you need to read the Bible more carefully.

Every different conflicting interpretation of the Bible justifies itself, and claims to be the only true interpretation,

The Trinity belief is in direct contradiction with the Torah, except may fit the Ancient Canaanite polytheism

Accurately understanding what the Bible says requires having God‘s help.

Every different conflicting interpretation believes they do so with "God's help' or is it the help of the Gods..

 

[shunyadragon]

The Bible also tells the story of Adam and Eve's children; Cain and Abel, and then their third son Seth. What shall surely die was their innocence, not their physical body. They still were alive, after that day to have three children, but not in paradise.

Once they ate of tree of knowledge of good and evil, they both noticed they were naked and tried to coverup. They noticed naked because the law of good and evil, they had learned from Satan, said naked was taboo. Before they learned that law; before they ate from the tree, they did not know what naked was in terms of a value judgment. They still were innocent like a baby or toddler, who runs around naked and has fun. But once they learned law of good and evil, they were suddenly full of worries, due to the law telling them all the things to worry about and avoid.

As a more adult analogy, in war, a soldier may have to kill to survive. That first kill changes you forever; hardened by repressed natural guilt, that can then, for many, turn into psychological problems. The sense of their original innocence, just moments before, is lost, and you can never put that genie back in the bottle. Part of you dies.

In terms of Adam and Eve, it was like they had entered adolescence, now with raging hormones, need to repress, more rules, self consciousness, and the loss of those simpler times of their youth. In terms of evolution, this symbolized the adolescence of humanity, where more rules start to apply. Adam and Eve marry and have two children, who themselves lose their innocence; Cain kills Abel and Cain is exiled. Cain was the first physical death and loss associated with Adam and Eve, which further changes Adam and Eve; spiritual loss and now human loss of a child.

Yes, the Bible begins with an ancient mythology of Creation and human origins. We should know better today.