Adam's Sins?

[Derek Wolff]

The garden was perfection. By gaining the knowledge and allowing imperfections into themselves they were removed from the garden. Of course that depends on us believing the genesis story as told.

HelioPrime was closest. Because we gain the knowledge of right and wrong we were no longer innocent. Adam and Eve covered themselves in shame of the realization they were nude, they had become corrupted.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Rainbow Some hundreds years ago, guys thought that Earth was flat. Their determination was irrelevant, since Earth was/is Not flat, regardless of timing. It applies to a star we have not discovered yet. It exists, regardless of what Science teaches us today. Example : A blind-man can not see. Does Moon exist for him or (she) does not ? What absract are you talking about ? I am afraid that by following your approach Homo Sapiens could have already disappeared, since any progress would take place under specific conditions and only. A sort of scientific tyranny. What could have been developed, then ? Not much, if anything at all, I am afraid. In short : a stereotypcial way of thinking never helped Homo Sapiens to make progress, ever.

Maybe I'm out of touch with the conversation, but I'm having a hard time understanding how this pertains to ... anything.

[Dagda]

And Eve only didn't it because a certain slippery fellow told her too. Lucifer. And this is where, for me, God and 'the Devil' show their true colours - God denies us the wisdom and lies to us, while Lucifer reveals the truth about God lying to us, and encourages us to find our wisdom against a god who would deny us such.

Although I agree with the rest of your argument, this bit is were it falls down.
It is true that God appears to be the bad guy here and the serpent actually free's humanity from there bondage in ignorance, but the serpent doesn't need to be the devil.
No-where in the creation account can I find refrence to the devil. This seems strange as elsewhere the authors of the bible( over 40 I think) are never slow at adding Satan in.
This brings me to the theology/philosophy called gnosticism. This maintains that the serpent was the one true God from beond the material world(or an assosiate at least) who tried to take on our arogant creator, the Ildaboath(means childish god)
That is why humanity is punished, because they attempt to escape the Ildaboath's tryany.
This all apears in the Nag Hammadi libary, by the way.

[Dagda]

Another intresting point(perhaps everyone knows this?) Satan/devil and lucifer do not get mentioned together. In fact lucifer is never mentioned in the bible. The devil and lucifer could very easily be seperate entities. Explains why lucifer=bringer of light and Satan=lier

[Rainbow]

Quote by: gallo 1. Sure it explains. It explains why there are two creation stories. It explains why "God" is referred to by two different names. It explains why the myth of Noah is so chopped up. 2. I suspect you don't. 3. They are not considered "errors" by the faithful. The text of the Bible as we know it is very old. It may very well be that the original compiler of the myths that are recounted in Genesis put all of those elements together. He could have been working from stories he had heard or from even older texts that didn't survive. But it is generally agreed by most real Bible scholars that there are several sources for the Pentateuch. Even copying errors from Christian scribes are centuries old. Perhaps you aren't familiar with that peculiar segment of American population that believes that the Bible is literally true in every detail because it is the word of god. These people don't accept that there are any errors of any kind. It would be the farthest thing from their minds to think that the Bible needed correction. 4. It used to take a long time to make copies. You don't seem aware that the printing press didn't always exist and that every copy had to be made by hand. And of course, the point was that the original copy of the text that we have today was the work of several people, perhaps redacted and compilled by a single individual. That, at least, explains the two creation stories and the disjointed story of Noah. The other choice, that it is the eye witness account of creation written by god, or that it was set down by Adam according to what god told him is rediculous beyond belief.

#1
It seems to be irrelevant whether God is being referred to and/or called by different names, as long as it stands for the same meaning.

#2
N/C

#3
Are you suggesting that some parts of data - within the Bible - are being translated from the original Polytheism-inspired Hebrew ?
What could be the reason, to include such translations within the Bible, then ?

I am not certain the reasons you raise with a reference to way of taking the Bible by some guys. I am aware that some guys take the Bible very literally.

#4
I meant the following :
The Bible's re-prints are being edited for years.
Why some guys have not even attempted to coorect and/or update it, that is really marvelous.

Back to your point.
What do you mean by :
- "two creation stories and the disjointed story of Noah."
?

Putting your answers aside for a moment, I disagree (with you) that the Bible is Mythology-related source.
Here, I give you the argument you to re-think your approach.

Ezekiel's encounter with God.
Link #1 (to Biblical data) :
- BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Link #2 (to Science-supported data) :
- Translated version of http://www.ch-forrer.ch/P-SETI/Referate/Berlin_2000.htm

Link #1 refers to events observed by Ezekiel, as the eyewitness.
Link #2 refers to scientific explanations of Ezekiel's encounter with God, as perceived by scientific means. Both refer to the same event.

Since the Bible means the same God, then we should take Ezekiel's encounter as a logical and chronological chain of events that refer to the same God, as well.
What is it so special with Ezekiel ?
Ezekiel was the only one who described his encounter God with extreme details. Based on Ezekiel description, Blumrich - one of the NASA's top leading engineers - recreated those events. As the result Blumrich got his patent.
(What Ezekiel got awarded with, I have no idea. Maybe a ride in a spaceship.)

Are you suggesting that Blumrich walked away with patent for Mythology ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Morality Games Maybe I'm out of touch with the conversation, but I'm having a hard time understanding how this pertains to ... anything.

If one takes the Bible literally, that is an error one makes.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: orgaelin Rainbow, it sounds like you've been reading Alan F Alford, an author who also puts forward the genetic engineering idea. There are others too, though probably none of them are taken too seriously. The consensus view is that we are clever as a race now, but were progressively less advanced the further back in history you go. I honestly don't think that can be entirely true. There are countless pieces of evidence that contradict this view. My favourite author on this subject is Laurence Gardner, whose various books trace a coherent story of Human history from before the biblical era, and right through it up to the present day. As I recall, he never really defined 'the gods', where they came from or what they were. Alford suggests they were aliens. David Rohl (archaelogist and author) suggests they were mere humans from an earlier civilisation. But Gardner just calls them the gods. Whatever the truth behind it all, the god/s of Genesis don't come out of it sounding worthy of worship and adoration. Rather, he is positively unfair and mean, self-absorbed, bad-tempered, and the further you read, more and more like a genocidal maniac. Amen.

None of above.
Dostoyevsky and Valtari, mostly, instead.

Compare Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens.

For example :
- DNA
- time period

Neanderthal vs. Homo Sapiens
There is impassable gap between these 2 species.
How the Homo Sapiens emerged, then :
- "Out-of-box"
- "Do-It-Yourself" ?
:-)