*The accursed tree*

[ShatterSphere]

In the beginning God created the earth in seven days, planted a magical tree… (And you fell for it).

Prior to scientific advancement people actually believed that the universe (world) was created in seven days and that the earth is actually 6,000 years old. This is what people believed to be true, isn’t it? But after the fact man began to fill the void of the creation argument by saying that the story of Genesis was ‘symbolic’. But for 6,000 years people believed it was the truth from its conception. I find it funny when people say it is ‘symbolic’ when it is in fact not.

The truth is there never was any seven days. The earth formed over billions of years. Adam and eve was not the first people. People (homo-sapiens) have been around for 100,000 years. There never was any magical tree of forbidden fruit and for that matter there never was any command since there was never any tree.

The truth is man dwells in a higher state of consciousness in which reason and logic draws an education from the faculty that experiences (the mind and the body). Now knowing this we can logically assume that through experience man came upon wisdom and in it came to know the difference between good and evil; so basically man has no notion of moral fitness but through the education of experience.

There never was any snake and there never was any command. And you can’t have the command without the tree. However, the notion of spirit (or God) has always been imprinted upon the human mind.

I do truly believe that the age of reason died at some accursed tree.

 

[Sphinx777]

I do truly believe that the age of reason died at some accursed tree.

the age of innocence...

 

[cantata]

You're right: the texts were probably not intended by their authors to be symbolic. The account in Genesis 1 in particular has a strong flavour of an attempt at science. The people who wrote it really did believe in a firmament that kept the cosmic waters out.

 

[Morrigu]

Well the thig is i belive that no allegoric mithology is meant to be an allegoric mithology in the first place, say of any culture in any time, why should the genesis be different?

still, i also think that not everyone belived in it literaly...
thing is storytelling has always been the way for humanity to explain his world, so some teaching is pased in it too, that is why it can be seen as metaphore.

It's not a 100% attempt at science, and not a 100% storytelling, but smewhere in betwene

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're right: the texts were probably not intended by their authors to be symbolic. The account in Genesis 1 in particular has a strong flavour of an attempt at science. The people who wrote it really did believe in a firmament that kept the cosmic waters out.

Actually the bible states that the firmament separated or divided, or more accurately made a distinction between the waters; the waters being liquid water in the seas, and atmospheric water vapor.

If you consulted a scientist today he (or she) would agree with this description. I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you, and others reading this, would have a greater understanding of Genesis 1.

Far from being "an attempt at science" it was a simple statement of fact. It was only later that man decided that such information was 'scientific'. The upshot of course was that as man became more 'knowledgable' about the earth this 'knowledge' was now the province of 'science', and not of 'religion'. And one could not really understand that there were two common forms of 'water' unless a 'scientist' informed them of this fact.

Pretty silly, eh?

owg

 

[cantata]

Actually the bible states that the firmament separated or divided, or more accurately made a distinction between the waters; the waters being liquid water in the seas, and atmospheric water vapor.

If you consulted a scientist today he (or she) would agree with this description. I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you, and others reading this, would have a greater understanding of Genesis 1.

Far from being "an attempt at science" it was a simple statement of fact. It was only later that man decided that such information was 'scientific'. The upshot of course was that as man became more 'knowledgable' about the earth this 'knowledge' was now the province of 'science', and not of 'religion'. And one could not really understand that there were two common forms of 'water' unless a 'scientist' informed them of this fact.

Pretty silly, eh?

owg

I'm afraid this is utter nonsense. The word translated as 'firmament' in the Old Testament refers to a solid hemisphere, and it comes from a word that means "to beat something out of a solid sheet", like a dish or a bowl. Check out Job 37:18: "can you join him [God] in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

It's a simple fact that both Old and New Testament authors believed that the earth was flat with water surrounding it above and below, and that there was a solid dome over the earth that kept out the cosmic waters. (See also Genesis 7:11: "[O]n that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.") The stars were stuck to its inside. (See also Daniel 8:10: "It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them" and Revelation 12:4: "[A dragon's] tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.")

This is bad, bronze-age science, and that's all there is to it. If you're interested, in 1 Enoch the author goes into great detail to describe the points in the firmament where the sun and moon manage to get in and out. They really believed this stuff.

 

[ShatterSphere]

You're right: the texts were probably not intended by their authors to be symbolic. The account in Genesis 1 in particular has a strong flavour of an attempt at science. The people who wrote it really did believe in a firmament that kept the cosmic waters out.

Absolutely. Reason and logic defies faith.

 

[ShatterSphere]

Well the thig is i belive that no allegoric mithology is meant to be an allegoric mithology in the first place, say of any culture in any time, why should the genesis be different?

still, i also think that not everyone belived in it literaly...
thing is storytelling has always been the way for humanity to explain his world, so some teaching is pased in it too, that is why it can be seen as metaphore.

It's not a 100% attempt at science, and not a 100% storytelling, but smewhere in betwene

I agree with you.

 

[ShatterSphere]

Actually the bible states that the firmament separated or divided, or more accurately made a distinction between the waters; the waters being liquid water in the seas, and atmospheric water vapor.

If you consulted a scientist today he (or she) would agree with this description. I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you, and others reading this, would have a greater understanding of Genesis 1.

Far from being "an attempt at science" it was a simple statement of fact. It was only later that man decided that such information was 'scientific'. The upshot of course was that as man became more 'knowledgable' about the earth this 'knowledge' was now the province of 'science', and not of 'religion'. And one could not really understand that there were two common forms of 'water' unless a 'scientist' informed them of this fact.

Pretty silly, eh?

owg

Yes we must agree that in any story telling there is going to be some actual reflection from the world around us.

But my whole point is that there never was any fall of Adam. Now through reason we can see this--that if God made a command then through its consistency of the story, the command, was directed toward a tree. But if there was no tree then there was no command. And then if there is no command then there is no original sin.

And we know there was no tree because it does not fit in with the story of adam and what we know today. Merely, by evidence of humanity prior to 6,000 years ago (100,000 years or so) we can agree that Adam was not the first man; and if he was not the first man then the rest of the story is fictional. No tree means no command.

 

[ShatterSphere]

I'm afraid this is utter nonsense. The word translated as 'firmament' in the Old Testament refers to a solid hemisphere, and it comes from a word that means "to beat something out of a solid sheet", like a dish or a bowl. Check out Job 37:18: "can you join him [God] in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

It's a simple fact that both Old and New Testament authors believed that the earth was flat with water surrounding it above and below, and that there was a solid dome over the earth that kept out the cosmic waters. (See also Genesis 7:11: "[O]n that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.") The stars were stuck to its inside. (See also Daniel 8:10: "It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them" and Revelation 12:4: "[A dragon's] tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.")

This is bad, bronze-age science, and that's all there is to it. If you're interested, in 1 Enoch the author goes into great detail to describe the points in the firmament where the sun and moon manage to get in and out. They really believed this stuff.

This makes for good argument. Learn something new every day. Thanks.

So then would you agree that we must logicaly derive things from mythological argument and compare (and) contrast things with reasonable argument? --if that makes sense.

 

[cantata]

I think that when mythology is flawed, it should be recognised as such. Now you may be able to glean all sorts of interesting insights into the human condition from mythology, of course, but trying to read the future of science or anything else back into it is a waste of time and somewhat dishonest.

It's just as bad when people think they can see the Trinity in the Old Testament. There was no such thing until around the 3rd century AD. So no, when God says "Let us create..." in Genesis 1, it's a throwback to the polytheism of the ancient near eastern religions - not a reference to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

[InnocentOdion]

it's a throwback to the polytheism of the ancient near eastern religions - not a reference to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I agree.
It took a while for it to become monotheistic, didn't it? I suppose it went through a spectrum of beliefs. Polytheism, henotheism, monolatry, inclusive monotheism and finally exclusive monotheism, and now it seems like Judaism especially is going back towards inclusive monotheism.

Or am I the only one who thinks so?

 

[cantata]

I agree.
It took a while for it to become monotheistic, didn't it? I suppose it went through a spectrum of beliefs. Polytheism, henotheism, monolatry, inclusive monotheism and finally exclusive monotheism, and now it seems like Judaism especially is going back towards inclusive monotheism.

Or am I the only one who thinks so?

You are not the only one - many, many Old Testament scholars would agree with you.

It's very interesting to note that a commandment like "You shall have no other gods but me" does not make it obvious to people that the Ancient Hebrews were henotheists. I suppose people see what they want to see...

 

[InnocentOdion]

It's very interesting to note that a commandment like "You shall have no other gods but me" does not make it obvious to people that the Ancient Hebrews were henotheists.

I think that they were going from henotheism into monolatrism (is that the correct usage of "monolatry"?) shortly after this, because "before Me" insists that YHWH is more important than the other gods, whereas henotheism generally teaches that they can worship and be alright, too.

when the I suppose people see what they want to see...

I agree.

 

[cantata]

I think that they were going from henotheism into monolatrism (is that the correct usage of "monolatry"?) shortly after this, because "before Me" insists that YHWH is more important than the other gods, whereas henotheism generally teaches that they can worship and be alright, too.

Yes, that's a fair point.

I would go with monolatry, yes.

 

[InnocentOdion]

Yes, that's a fair point.

I would go with monolatry, yes.

Yayyy I'm agreed with (for once!)

I think that the change to monotheism started to come into effect during the "Prophets" (Nevi'im). I think that things changed during the Writings (Ketuvi'im), which I don't think were standardised, even during Jesus' time;

Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

He mentions the law of Moses (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and only part of the writings, the Psalms, but he doesn't mention the rest of the writings. My religious teacher's opinion is that these parts of the Tanakh were not fully in acceptance or seen as the words of God at that time, but came to be accepted later on.

 

[ShatterSphere]

I think that when mythology is flawed, it should be recognised as such. Now you may be able to glean all sorts of interesting insights into the human condition from mythology, of course, but trying to read the future of science or anything else back into it is a waste of time and somewhat dishonest.

It's just as bad when people think they can see the Trinity in the Old Testament. There was no such thing until around the 3rd century AD. So no, when God says "Let us create..." in Genesis 1, it's a throwback to the polytheism of the ancient near eastern religions - not a reference to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Good point of view. Excellent insight.

 

[ShatterSphere]

I agree.
It took a while for it to become monotheistic, didn't it? I suppose it went through a spectrum of beliefs. Polytheism, henotheism, monolatry, inclusive monotheism and finally exclusive monotheism, and now it seems like Judaism especially is going back towards inclusive monotheism.

Or am I the only one who thinks so?

Don't forget the old testament phrase, God of gods, meaning a plethora of gods exist; however, in the new testament there is only one God, three persons--one God.

 

[ShatterSphere]

You are not the only one - many, many Old Testament scholars would agree with you.

It's very interesting to note that a commandment like "You shall have no other gods but me" does not make it obvious to people that the Ancient Hebrews were henotheists. I suppose people see what they want to see...

Absolutely. We want to believe. Faith is provided, we believe; however, in the end we only see what we are told or what we want to see.

The oldest trick in the book is within any interpretation. They say, Do not interpret this; but they do it for us. So who is to say who is right and wrong. We are going to see only what we want to see. The bible is poetry...

And I like the old Jim Morrison phrase: Poetry doesn't actually say anything, we can step into whatever door (*word) we choose.

 

[ShatterSphere]

I think that they were going from henotheism into monolatrism (is that the correct usage of "monolatry"?) shortly after this, because "before Me" insists that YHWH is more important than the other gods, whereas henotheism generally teaches that they can worship and be alright, too.


I agree.

YHWH is actually I am, who am. It's too bad that we all can't say that due to superstition. How many people here can actually say, I think therefore I am, who am?

I am, who am. Don't believe me? I just am, who is. I have a name but I know that I am, who am. No one wants to connect to God like that...No, that is God's name. I am, who am. I think therefore I am.