Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[nPeace]

Some Archaeology findings might prove some aspects of some Biblical stories are somewhat based on certain historical facts, but there are some archaeology findings that refute some Biblical stories.

For instance, There is archaeological evidence that there was never any significant flood having occurred anywhere near the place of Noah's Ark alleged landing spot during the most recent 12,000 years.

The 12,000 year old Göbekli Tepe archaeological site is evidence of non-deluged land having existed in the region near Mount Ararat for several thousands of years.

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia

According to the Bible, 422 years elapsed from the time of Noah's Flood until the birth of Abraham.
( Genesis 11:10-32 ) 529 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 333 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2 ) Thus, the Biblical date Noah's Flood allegedly destroyed all life outside Noah's Ark was no earlier than 2400 BC.

The Date of Noah’s Flood - creation.com

Annual growth ring counts can determine the age of a bristle cone pine tree.
A now living four-thousand-nine-hundred-year-old tree would have been more than 500 years old at the time of Noah's Flood.

Bristlecone pine - Wikipedia

The bristlecone pine in California's White Mountains measured by Tom Harlan to be 5062 years old, would have been way over 600 years old years old at the time of Noah's Flood.

These trees are living monuments that there was never any globally catastrophic flood 4,400 years before now as claimed in the Bible.

According to the article on Göbekli Tepe, the dating given are:
Lab-Number - Context - cal BCE
Ua-19561 - enclosure C - 7560–7370
Ua-19562 - enclosure B - 8280–7970
Hd-20025 - Layer III - 9110–8620
Hd-20036 - Layer III - 9130–8800

...and we both know that radiocarbon dating is not accurate, and is off by tens of thousands of years.
Besides that, I don't seem to be getting your point as to how this refutes a global flood.
Perhaps you can say how, because the article does not.

I am also not seeing the point you are making about the age of bristlecone pine trees. Are you saying that no trees survived the flood? You will have to show me that. However, we don't want to flood the world again, just to prove you wrong, do we. Do you notice that the trees you describe are in mountains. They are durable, and capable of surviving harsh conclusions. The harsh environment at these high elevations actually creates the conditions that cause these trees to live so long.
The waters did not cover these trees for very long.

Therefore, neither of those arguments refute the Biblical account of the flood.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not quite sure I can agree with the progression.

At Hebrews 11:11, it is rendered “to conceive” where it is used with “offspring”.
Used in the expression “founding (foundation) of the world,” it apparently refers to the conception and birth of children born to Adam and Eve.

A word can be used in different applications. I would disagree that "foundation of the world" in context of "the world" can then be interposed onto Heb 11:11. Different subject matter. Especially since the definition has multiple application.

Okay. Why not start with the question I asked. How do you understand the texts at Luke 11:49-51. and Hebrews 4:3, if foundation of the world is referring to the beginning of the earth, or before all mankind?

 

[Jamnperry]

I look at it as the birth of Ego. I believe Adam was the Son of god and even one of those genealogies says just that in the gospels. Being found fully human and self contained, for awhile there it was just fine. He was just walking in this constant presence with the father. But it wasn’t good for him to be alone and not relate to other humans so along comes Eve. And that’s when things started to go south. So after a lot of nagging and wondering and just plain human questioning, they did what Adam sensed he wasn’t to do. From then on it became a blame fest and so then this problem arose. To solve this dilemma was going to be tough but this was all seen beforehand. It was a necessary step to our evolution that we learn to control our egos. So Adam, being his only son, was cursed to suffer death or, more like the curse of forgetfulness. It pleased his father to lay this sacrifice on him, that he should live over and over again, only to rediscover his own relationship with the father again. Each reincarnation, he would overcome his ego and again reunite with the father on some level, only to fall back into forgetfulness. By those stripes we are healed, because he lived the life of Isa 53 over and over again and likely among the Jews. The Son of Man appeared giving us pointers on how to overcome the ego and said do that until he surfaces again.
So the myth was a simple story passed down that was like a GPS for the Son of Man for many lifetimes. Same with the Hebrew stories. Part myth but also true but the real meanings and purposes of those myths were like parables that taught truth.

 

[nPeace]

What worries me is life in heaven.

If two individuals, chatting with God in a magical garden almost daily, managed to mess things up, I wonder what are the chances that one in millions in heaven will not mess up again.

A second fall? And a third? And so on?

Ciao

- viole

This is a good question. I just thought I would answer although I know the question was addressed to @Katzpur.
You have just addressed the reason God did not destroy the rebels instantly - The question would come up again, and more important than that, the question of whether God is "fit to rule"; the rightful sovereign.
In other words, can or would the rebel do better? Is God the one to rule, or can someone else do better? Does God rule justly?
All these questions were what the rebel angel raised. He challenged God, and wisely, God allowed that rebel time - to prove him wrong, of course, and once and for all, settle that issue, in the mind of the onlookers.
Once the issue is settled, if it comes up again, there will be no need to repeat. God would act swiftly and decisively - to put the poor chap out of his misery. It will be clear to all that God acted justly.
You can see an illustration here.

 

[Kenny]

Well, that isn't entirely inaccurate. Eve was deceived by Satan using the serpent as a puppet. That was her motivation. Adam knew that Eve could very well be put to death for what she had done and he feared being alone again.

When discovered, notice what Adam said. He tried to blame it on God and Eve. "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree and so I ate." He knew he wasn't supposed to eat it.

I agree totally, but it still seems like Adam was watching all the while because it says (although we will never know for certain either way):

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Notice that "and did eat, and gave also"... seems like in was in tandem to me.

 

[Kenny]

What is the point of all that?

Ciao

- viole

don't understand... what is the point of your question?

 

[Earthling]

I agree totally, but it still seems like Adam was watching all the while because it says (although we will never know for certain either way):

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Notice that "and did eat, and gave also"... seems like in was in tandem to me.

I have found that Strongs isn't a very accurate commentary. The KJV, NIV and others . . . not very good translations at all.

Genesis 3:6 - Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it.

 

[Kenny]

Okay. Why not start with the question I asked. How do you understand the texts at Luke 11:49-51. and Hebrews 4:3, if foundation of the world is referring to the beginning of the earth, or before all mankind?

The problem, as I see it, is that you are selecting those versus that only support your position... so let's amplify it. Additionally, before mankind or before earth... aren't they both before?

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,but was manifest in these last times for you,

Notice the word "before" the "foundation of the world".

Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

This one is translated "conceived" - in other words, before it was, she received the foundation. This is applied to her capacity.

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with mewhere I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

So, here the word "world" means cosmos:

Definition

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
   2. of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19
   N
   
   Notice the variety of applications.
   
   So, at most, we can have a viewpoint but we can hardly be dogmatic about this position. Regardless.. before still means before man and that could also include before God created the earth since He planned it all.

 

[Kenny]

Okay. Why not start with the question I asked. How do you understand the texts at Luke 11:49-51. and Hebrews 4:3, if foundation of the world is referring to the beginning of the earth, or before all mankind?

The problem, as I see it, is that you are selecting those versus that only support your position... so let's amplify it. Additionally, before mankind or before earth... aren't they both before?

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,but was manifest in these last times for you,

Notice the word "before" the "foundation of the world".

Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

This one is translated "conceived" - in other words, before it was, she received the foundation.

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with mewhere I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

 

[Kenny]

I have found that Strongs isn't a very accurate commentary. The KJV, NIV and others . . . not very good translations at all.

Genesis 3:6 - Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it.

• True... sometimes... but I enjoy reading John Gill who gives an Hebraic understanding:

she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat;
she took it off of the tree, and not only tasted of it, but ate of it; what quantity cannot be said, enough to break the divine law, and to incur the divine displeasure: so Sanchoniatho says F12, that Aeon (the same with Eve) found the way of taking food from trees: and gave also to her husband with her;
that he might eat as well as she, and partake of the same benefits and advantages she hoped to reap from hence; for no doubt it was of good will, and not ill will, that she gave it to him; and when she offered it to him, it is highly probable she made use of arguments with him, and pressed him hard to it, telling him what delicious food it was, as well as how useful it would be to him and her. The Jews infer from hence, that Adam was with her all the while, and heard the discourse between the serpent and her, yet did not interpose nor dissuade his wife from eating the fruit, and being prevailed upon by the arguments used; or however through a strong affection for his wife, that she might not die alone, he did as she had done: and he did eat;

 

[Salvador]

According to the article on Göbekli Tepe, the dating given are:
Lab-Number - Context - cal BCE
Ua-19561 - enclosure C - 7560–7370
Ua-19562 - enclosure B - 8280–7970
Hd-20025 - Layer III - 9110–8620
Hd-20036 - Layer III - 9130–8800

...and we both know that radiocarbon dating is not accurate, and is off by tens of thousands of years.
Besides that, I don't seem to be getting your point as to how this refutes a global flood.
Perhaps you can say how, because the article does not.

I am also not seeing the point you are making about the age of bristlecone pine trees. Are you saying that no trees survived the flood? You will have to show me that. However, we don't want to flood the world again, just to prove you wrong, do we. Do you notice that the trees you describe are in mountains. They are durable, and capable of surviving harsh conclusions. The harsh environment at these high elevations actually creates the conditions that cause these trees to live so long.
The waters did not cover these trees for very long.

Therefore, neither of those arguments refute the Biblical account of the flood.

According to the Bible, ( Genesis 7:20 ) "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." If this were true, then no trees would've been able to survive such a deluge. Of course, any trees having survived beyond when alleged flood of biblical proportions occurred, demonstrates this story in the Bible is not based on actual history.

 

[viole]

don't understand... what is the point of your question?

What is the point of creating humans knowing in advance that they will fail. Actually knowing everything in advance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Okay. Why not start with the question I asked. How do you understand the texts at Luke 11:49-51. and Hebrews 4:3, if foundation of the world is referring to the beginning of the earth, or before all mankind?

I find Not the beginning of Earth, but rather the foundation of the world of mankind.
That righteous world apparently begins with Abel according to Jesus at Matthew 23:35.
Matthew 23:35 ties in nicely with Luke 11:50-51.
God's 'creative works' (which He is now resting from) in His still on-going 7th-day rest day - Hebrews 4:4-11.
So, God did Not just stop working (John 5:17), but He did stop further material/physical creation after Eve.
In other words, for the time being (7th day) after creating mankind, God is resting from further creative works.
Thus, the founding of the world (of mankind) then actually begins, Not with fallen A&E, but with righteous Abel.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I agree totally, but it still seems like Adam was watching all the while because it says (although we will never know for certain either way):
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Notice that "and did eat, and gave also"... seems like in was in tandem to me.

I find there is No mention of Adam watching when the serpent was influencing Eve.
After Eve ate, then she offered the fruit to her husband.
Adam must have loved her more than his God at that point because Adam already knew that eating from the forbidden fruit would mean his death. Adam committed suicide.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

According to the Bible, ( Genesis 7:20 ) "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." If this were true, then no trees would've been able to survive such a deluge. Of course, any trees having survived beyond when alleged flood of biblical proportions occurred, demonstrates this story in the Bible is not based on actual history.

I am wondering how anyone would know if Noah did Not have saplings and seeds on the Ark________

 

[Salvador]

I am wondering how anyone would know if Noah did Not have saplings and seeds on the Ark________

The fact there are living trees at least 500 years older than when the Bible implies they should have been destroyed in a global flood covering the highest mountain does demonstrate Noah's Flood is mythical and thus, never actually happened.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The fact there are living trees at least 500 years older than when the Bible implies they should have been destroyed in a global flood covering the highest mountain does demonstrate Noah's Flood is mythical and thus, never actually happened.

I am curious how old are the oldest trees _____________

 

[Salvador]

I am curious how old are the oldest trees _____________

Older than 5,000 years, some clonal tree colony root systems are thought to be many times older than 5,000 years.

List of oldest trees - Wikipedia

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Older than 5,000 years, some clonal tree colony root systems are thought to be many times older than 5,000 years.
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia

Thank you. ' thought to be ' and are, does leave a gap in my mind.

 

[Kenny]

What is the point of creating humans knowing in advance that they will fail. Actually knowing everything in advance.

Ciao

- viole

All mankind has not failed.

How many times we have gone through the vice-grips of life knowing that if we just push through the recompense is better than the sacrifice?