Ezekiel 28 ???

Thanks to everyone so far, for your very deep and thought provoking replies…


The King of Tyre at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy in verse 25-32, is believed to be referring to King Ethbaal III, (590 - c.573)

Assuming Ezekiel’s prophecy is for the King Ethbaal III, then I guess it was not such a bad bet to make. King Nebuchadnezzar occupied Jerusalem and then exiled the Jews to Babylon and then began a long and grueling battle against Tyre. But it seems that against all the odds, Tyre, under King Ethbaal III rule, managed to withstand a long siege, lasting some 13 years, between 586 and 573 BC.


The overall consensus, although not shared by all, is that the character being described in the Garden of Eden is Satan. I’m starting to think the passage is a dual representation of the King of Tyre and Satan. If Ezekiel’s prophecy is referring to the destruction of the King Ethbaal III, by fire; then history clearly shows us, that this did not take place. He may of course just be repeating what is mentioned about the eventual destruction of Satan, as recorded for example, in the books of Jeremiah and Jude.


What interest’s me the most about this passage in Ezekiel, and indeed the documentary as a whole; are the elements describing the Garden of Eden and it’s overall implications. Of course working out who the character portrayed in these passages is, is an important part to figuring that out. IMO it’s referring to Satan, but many scholars argue that, Satan is never described as a Cherub/Angel anywhere in the bible and that, that aspect only comes from Greek mythology.


According to the documentary, it stated that many scholars believe that the Ezekiel account of the Garden of Eden, is much older than the Genesis version, A simple search however, will show that Genesis was written in 1400 BC and Ezekiel is written around about 500 BC. So I can only assume that perhaps they have found some other piece of evidence, that shows that the Ezekiel description of the Garden of Eden, comes from an even earlier source than Genesis, but if so, then what, and how…?



- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
According to the documentary, it stated that many scholars believe that the Ezekiel account of the Garden of Eden, is much older than the Genesis version, A simple search however, will show that Genesis was written in 1400 BC and Ezekiel is written around about 500 BC. So I can only assume that perhaps they have found some other piece of evidence, that shows that the Ezekiel description of the Garden of Eden, comes from an even earlier source than Genesis, but if so, then what, and how…?

Just a quick correction on what I have written above.


I watched the documentary again, and right near the end, it is stated that later scribes placed the Eden story, right at the beginning of Genesis, sometime after the 6th century BC !!! This is why the Ezekiel account of Eden, is considered to be older than the one in Genesis!

Although I’m having a hard time finding any evidence for this, online.


What strikes me as strange, is that other references to the Garden of Eden, for example, in Ezekiel and Isaiah etc, make no mention of “original sin”, and the “fall of man” etc…If these particular aspects of the story, were so important; then they should have been mentioned/kept, elsewhere in the bible at least once, in these apparently older versions.


If on the other hand these other Eden story accounts, are coming from other unknown, and possibly even earlier documents. Then the important aspects of the story i.e. “original sin”, and the “fall of man” are either non-existent, or, they just fail to mention them for one reason or another.



- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

Although I’m having a hard time finding any evidence for this, online.

No, you wouldn't, that's why I was talking about $200 books which are to normal people obscure academic publications, where they normally gather bits from hundreds of sources and compare and criticize other people's theories and make their own, or make conclusions as to how valid other assumptions are, and what further work needs to be done in the different lines of study already being worked in.
To answer your own question, you would have to be a researcher yourself and spend two years trying to access all the current publications available and making your own compilation. (This is why the video has this woman as the presenter someone who is exactly one of these specialist researchers and lecturer and now professor)
If you want to jump into this world, I would suggest a book from my list on my profile page, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Karel van der Toorn.

reply to post by Joecroft

What strikes me as strange, is that other references to the Garden of Eden, for example, in Ezekiel and Isaiah etc, make no mention of “original sin”, and the “fall of man” etc…If these particular aspects of the story, were so important; then they should have been mentioned/kept, elsewhere in the bible at least once, in these apparently older versions.

If on the other hand these other Eden story accounts, are coming from other unknown, and possibly even earlier documents. Then the important aspects of the story i.e. “original sin”, and the “fall of man” are either non-existent, or, they just fail to mention them for one reason or another.

As for the Ezekiel execration I'm going with the theory of an alliance between city-states made in a temple, as was the custom of the day so that the gods could be witness and enforcer. Possible that during Assyria's time, Jerusalem and Tyre and other capitals sent envoys or kings themselves to Babylon in order to swear allegiance to Babylon as the power to put down Assyria, as in quit paying tribute to Assyria and pay tribute to Babylon instead.

Since Ezekiel was in Babylon as one of the priestly caste, he could have had access to the temple record of the king of Tyre's oaths taken in Babylon's temple. Eden, in that case would be in Babylon. Walking among the fiery stones could have been part of the ceremony.

As for doctrines of the fall of angels, those came in as influenced by Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees.

As for original human sin being the cause of death in the world; I personally believe that the last T-Rex died on the Earth long before the first Homo-Sapien walked the Earth. Therefore, I don't believe man is the cause of death in the world.

reply to post by pthena

Walking among the fiery stones could have been part of the ceremony.

In the outer courtyard area of a temple, it would be ornamented to be a representation of a garden, as explained in the video, but it could be that in the inner room of the temple, it is decorated in a completely different motif, for the eyes of the high priests and kings, where the stone is overlaid in alloys of gold to represent flames and fiery serpents.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Originally posted by Joecroft
Although I’m having a hard time finding any evidence for this, online

Originally posted by jmdewey60
No, you wouldn't, that's why I was talking about $200 books which are to normal people obscure academic publications, where they normally gather bits from hundreds of sources and compare and criticize other people's theories and make their own, or make conclusions as to how valid other assumptions are, and what further work needs to be done in the different lines of study already being worked in.

I did manage to find one source below, which covers why the Eden story is considered to have been introduced into Genesis, in the 6th century BC. It is referred to as, the “Documentary Hypothesis”. Apart from it’s atheistic stance, the site is excellent, and explains how the Pentateuch evolved, and the theories behind the “Hypothesis”

The First Creation Story; Genesis 1:1 to 2:3: Historical Christianity taught that the entire Pentateuch -- the five books from Genesis to Deuteronomy -- was written by Moses. Most fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians continue to follow this belief. Most liberal and mainline theologians and religious skeptics accept the Documentary Hypothesis: that the Pentateuch was written by a number of authors (or groups of authors). They followed four different traditions, and imported some material from nearby Pagan sources. The Hypothesis asserts that the author of the creation story seen in the first verses of the Bible was an anonymous 6th Century BCE writer or group of writers of the priestly tradition (often referred to as "P").

Source

Originally posted by jmdewey60
…
If you want to jump into this world, I would suggest a book from my list on my profile page, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Karel van der Toorn.

Thanks, I notice you seem to be really well read on various obscure lol biblical books. I will take a look at your profile page, and see which books I might be interested in.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft
You really need to be careful when you get into all this theorizing and I try to stick with who I think are reputable people, meaning people in the field and produce in peer reviewed journals, and not people who are trying to sell books by making sensational claims.
To get serious into this can be an expensive proposition if you do not live close to a university with a very large library. I got spoiled with that where I used to live and one place in particular, which was Chico State University in California, where they had touch screen computers all over for catalogs, which was way ahead of its time for back then, in '82 and '83, a lot more information than is even on the internet, at least in terms of useful information.
The point being, if you live in a place like I have for the last 26 years, where there is nothing decent within a hundred mile radius, as a library like that, the alternative is to buy books. I think I am going to have to break down and get a functional vehicle to drive to my county library on a regular bases and have them borrow books from other libraries that they have agreements with, and hand them a big list of books I want and see if they can get them because I am amassing a backlog in that regard.

Joe

The overall consensus, although not shared by all, is that the character being described in the Garden of Eden is Satan.

"Overall?" You mean "Christian," right? The Eden story appears in the Hebrew Bible, and there's no Hebrew tradition of a supernatural nemesis of God. Satan has been "read into" Genesis 3; he wasn't written into it.

Satan, as God's nemesis, didn't exist, or if you prefer wasn't revealed, until the Christian Era. His name (like so many names, also a common noun) is Hebrew, but the concept is originally Christian.

Although I’m having a hard time finding any evidence for this, online.

It's uncontroversial that most of the Hebrew Bible was placed in more-or-less final form after the return from Babylonian exile. I assume that's what the scholars mean. However, except for the later writings added to the canon, such as Daniel, the stories being compiled would necessarily be older than this foundational compilation, and in some cases, very much older.

What strikes me as strange, is that other references to the Garden of Eden, for example, in Ezekiel and Isaiah etc, make no mention of “original sin”, and the “fall of man” etc…If these particular aspects of the story, were so important; then they should have been mentioned/kept, elsewhere in the bible at least once, in these apparently older versions.

These are also specifically Christian concepts. Why do you expect to find them mentioned in a Hebrew text?
-

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eightbits
"Overall?" You mean "Christian," right? The Eden story appears in the Hebrew Bible, and there's no Hebrew tradition of a supernatural nemesis of God. Satan has been "read into" Genesis 3; he wasn't written into it.

Yes, by “overall consensus”, I meant Christian lol (not sure how Judaism views it) but there are other Christians, who believe this verse is referring instead to Adam. The logical dilemma facing anyone trying to interpret this verse is the question; is Ezekiel’s prophecy, specifically verse 18, regarding either, the King of Tyre, Satan or Adam.

Most scholars have the King of Tyre, as being King Ethbaal III, and according to historical records, he lived a long and successful reign, and was succeeded by his, son, "Baal II". Although later Kings of Tyre were captured, they were eventually aloud to come back and rule; so there is no sign of any horrific deaths by fire.

It’s simply possible that Ezekiel meant verse 18, to refer to the King, and maybe he just got the prophecy wrong. But when we look at the other aspects of the passage, it seems to be indicating a character who was in Eden. So if the passage is just drawing a parallel between the King of Tyre and some other figure from Eden; then question still remains, as to whom, Ezekiel is drawing a parallel too…

Originally posted by eightbits
Satan, as God's nemesis, didn't exist, or if you prefer wasn't revealed, until the Christian Era. His name (like so many names, also a common noun) is Hebrew, but the concept is originally Christian.

Yes, very good point, but this is why the character being alluded to in Eden, as mentioned in Ezekiel 28, is so important.

Originally posted by Joecroft
What strikes me as strange, is that other references to the Garden of Eden, for example, in Ezekiel and Isaiah etc, make no mention of “original sin”, and the “fall of man” etc…If these particular aspects of the story, were so important; then they should have been mentioned/kept, elsewhere in the bible at least once, in these apparently older versions.

Originally posted by eightbits
These are also specifically Christian concepts. Why do you expect to find them mentioned in a Hebrew text?

lol
Good question…

Well, depending on when you believe the Garden of Eden story was put into Genesis, which would be either 1400 BC, or if you accept the “Documentary Hypothesis”, then it would be 6th century BC.

But either way, there was no modern concept of Christianity in both of those time periods. Of course it could be argued that Christianity has later accentuated those particular aspects of the story, but I think the concepts of disobeying God, and then being punished, are prominent, and persistent features of the story, no matter how you slice it.

And this is also the reason why I find it strange, that those particular prominent features are not repeated/documented, in other OT documents, especially the ones that are believed to be older than the Genesis account of Eden.

Instead all that the older accounts focus on, is that it is God’s garden, it’s features, it’s location and other things of that nature. But there is no real mention of these other important aspects of the story. In fact, even if the supposed older accounts are not older than the Genesis one, then I still find it strange that those important features, are not documented in any other verses in the OT, in regards to the Eden story.

I have so far found only find four brief mentions of the “fall of man” in other OT chapters, most of which are very vague. But unfortunately, they were all written in 6th century BC and onwards!


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft
You are running into the same problem I did around three years ago when I got really interested in Genesis 2 and 3. For example, you can go on Amazon and find tons of books on Genesis 1 but not a single book on Genesis 2 or 3. Recently I found the same sort of thing with 2 Corinthians. You can find lots of commentaries on 1 Corinthians, but not a single one on 2 Corinthians. I think writers on purpose avoid the difficult books and the difficult problems because what they have to say is not popular, so you have to go to the not popular books which mean academic books. I can tell you the answer but you will not like it, and why I make so many caustic posts about gods. The fall is the fall of god, not man. Look at Greek mythology, it is all about gods and demigods, they aren't normal people. Normal people are not interesting subjects of mythology. You can ask Pthena about Gilgamesh, he's not a straight human but another demigod.
Eden is what everything good was that god did for man, then something went wrong with god and now all we get is evil from god. You have these people in the OT who learned to embrace evil in the gods and became sorcerers to harness the power of evil to their own advantage. This is why you need the NT because we need to get away from all that and to believe in a good God who does not want people to believe in him in order to win the next war, to get land and money and the wives and daughters of your fallen victims.

You made an insightful remark about that particular king of Tyre and how he had a long, successful reign. This is the sort of people denounced by people like Ezekiel, ones who are successful. You can look at Solomon and how he was the most successful king of Israel, but he was very polytheist, where by marrying different wives he was accepting various gods, where the marriage is symbolic of treaties between nations which can only be done if each nation recognizes the god of the other nation being a legitimate god, the gods being the guarantors of the treaty. Someone like the king of Tyre would have all sorts of alliances with nations and therefore recognized many gods. Another example would be Manasseh who the woman hosting the video wrote a book about. He had the longest standing reign of any king of Judah, and the most successful which again means recognizing other gods in order to have trade and friendly relationships with other countries. A god like YHWH does not like that since he is the god of armies to where instead of trading with your neighbors, you just kill them and take whatever they have. So when you read the prophets, you see them saying Manasseh is the reason Israel was destroyed.
Another example is one you can find reading Josephus and the Wars of the Jews, and you find out the reason there is no temple in Jerusalem is that the Jews allowed the Romans to come to it and present offerings, then the fans of YHWH gained the ascendancy among the governors of the temple and decided they did not want to defile the temple with foreigners, which po'd the Romans and they tore the place down, which YHWH would prefer over having any polytheists come near the place. So what you have is this glowering sort of demonic god who lives on constant bloodshed and lust for murder and hatred for anything not YHWH.

I made a post the other day on one of The Greatest I am's threads giving my explanation of Eden where Adam and Eve were the priest and priestess of the Lord and their ritual was eating the fruit from the trees the Lord placed there for that purpose. The other tree was one not placed there by the Lord and may have been a native, or indigenous tree, where the serpent would have been a sort of priest who presented his tree as an acceptable offering to them to partake in. By eating of that other fruit, Adam and Eve were in effect recognizing another god, even if it was an actual god and even if that other god was there first. So this is a sort of lesson and when it would have been written and included in the OT canon, the lesson would have been why Israel got destroyed, and how to avoid the same fate, all over again, which means kill off any sort of competing gods even if they were already firmly entrenched in the culture of the land they were returning to.

reply to post by Joecroft

the passage is a dual representation of the King of Tyre and Satan.

Correct.

This describes Satan, who was a powerful Cherub, before his fall to the dark side.
Showing that the angel that became Satan was once good and serving God, but with his free will rebelled.

Joe

The logical dilemma facing anyone trying to interpret this verse is the question; is Ezekiel’s prophecy, specifically verse 18, regarding either, the King of Tyre, Satan or Adam.

Well, "Satan" is a non-starter, since Ezekiel wouldn't know who you're talking about. Worse, he'd think you were talking about the loyal servant of God with an especially thankless task.

As to the other two, Ezekiel, and maybe more importantly, the post-exilic compilers, could easily see the parallels between one person with a garden being kicked out by God's command, and any other persons with a garden kicked out of theirs by God's command. Even if, as at verse 13, one gardener is an individual man wearing jewels, while the other gardeners were a naked married couple.

I would see verse 18, which refers to no incident whatsoever in Genesis 3, as Ezekiel turning to other imagery of devastation to continue making his point, that the King of Tyre needs to straighten up. The purpose of any prophecy is to alter the listener's behavior. Maybe the king heeded the advice, and his sentence was suspended.

In the alternative, the rules of fulfilment include realization in later generations. All prophetic catastrophic language is figurative. A prophet's "fire" needn't involve literal combustion.

I think the concepts of disobeying God, and then being punished, are prominent, and persistent features of the story, no matter how you slice it.

Yes, nobody disputes there are aspects that Ezekiel 28 shares with Genesis 3. But there are also differences.

Probably the most important difference is that Ezekiel 28 isn't a story, but an ultimatum. The entirety of the Tyre oracle corresponds with Genesis 2: 17. God tells (or arranges someone to tell) a human being "The consequences of such-and-such behavior will be this kind of punishment."

What we're discussing is how much weight to place on the circumstance that the setting of one story of people coming to grief, an eden or garden, is mentioned in an ultimatum composed by someone who knew that story, and who knows that the recipient of the ultimatum has a garden.

especially the ones that are believed to be older than the Genesis account of Eden.

That's part of the problem. Nobody says that the Adam and Eve story wasn't composed long before the exile, and wasn't already well known among the returning Hebrew community. The most that anybody claims for the post-exile is that the story was canonized, and placed one way in the anthology of Hebrew stories, rather than some other placement.

BTW, its placement at the beginning of the Bible isn't why people read it as a creation story. People read it as a creation story because it depicts the creation of a man and the creation of a woman, and later observes both similarlities and differences between their situation and the situation of their descendants. Similarly, readers don't think it's about Everyman, Everywoman and Everysnake because of its placement in the book. They think that because God recites the situation of every man, woman and snake at 3: 14-19, and identifies that situation as a consequence of what happened in the story.

If the King of Tyre goes down, then he'll take Tyre with him, and only Tyre. Snake habitat will continue unchanged, gynecology will continue unchanged, and agricultural productivity will continue unchanged. Adam and Eve went down, and everything changed - becoming what it is like Now.

Since causes precede their effects in time, Adam and Eve did all that before Now. Whatever happens to the King of Tyre will be in the prophet's Future, not his Past.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You are running into the same problem I did around three years ago when I got really interested in Genesis 2 and 3...

Yes, I’m finding this to be true, and it’s really frustrating.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
... I think writers on purpose avoid the difficult books and the difficult problems because what they have to say is not popular, so you have to go to the not popular books which mean academic books.

This makes sense, especially if you’re a dedicated scholar, trying to make a living; the last thing you want to do, is publish evidence, which is too controversial.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I can tell you the answer but you will not like it, and why I make so many caustic posts about gods. The fall is the fall of god, not man. Look at Greek mythology, it is all about gods and demigods, they aren't normal people...

“The fall is the fall of god, not man.”

Well, the exact meaning of the word God or Elohim is very difficult to pin down and a lot depends on the context of a given passage. Men of renown or “Mighty men” as they were termed, are often given the title of God or Gods, throughout the OT; even Satan himself, is referred to as a God. So it seems that the distinction between a God, who was there in the beginning and created everything, and these other uses of the word God, are completely different, and are just titles given to men or perhaps Angels.

Take that verse in Psalm 82:5-7 for example. Specifically the line, “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness;…” and verses 6-7, “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High. But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” All these verses use the word God, to describe men.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Eden is what everything good was that god did for man, then something went wrong with god and now all we get is evil from god. You have these people in the OT who learned to embrace evil in the gods and became sorcerers to harness the power of evil to their own advantage...

Marcion as you may know, proposed that there were 2 Gods, mainly because he couldn’t reconcile, the teachings of Jesus, to the God in the OT. After a council meeting, where he proposed his ideas, he was quickly excommunicated by the church fathers and branded a heretic. Many claimed that he was a Gnostic but this is not certain.

The Gnostics use the term “demigod” frequently to describe the God of the OT and “Archons” to describe some kind of fallen Angels/Aliens. What I find interesting about the Christian Gnostics, especially the early Valentinian’s, is that they accepted the 10 commandments, along with Jesus, but they rejected the Old Testament. I can only assume that this is because they believed that the 10 commandments came from the God that Jesus represents, and considered the rest of the OT, to be coming from either corrupted men, abusing their power, or another malevolent source. Incidentally, this is how I currently view things.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You made an insightful remark about that particular king of Tyre and how he had a long, successful reign.
This is the sort of people denounced by people like Ezekiel, ones who are successful.

Funny thing is, that during and after the 13 year siege; people admired and had great respect for the King and the people of Tyre; they were seen as modern day hero’s. This is probably because people were inspired to see someone finally standing up to those Babylonian tyrants, and to see them holding there own, in the process.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You can look at Solomon and how he was the most successful king of Israel, but he was very polytheist, where by marrying different wives he was accepting various gods, where the marriage is symbolic of treaties between nations which can only be done if each nation recognizes the god of the other nation being a legitimate god, the gods being the guarantors of the treaty.

Going further back through the history, the Kings of Tyre and Isreal, tended to have very good and peaceful relations. What I always found peculiar, when reading about this, is that Solomon aloud the King of Tyre to help with the building of Israel’s Holy Temple. The King of Tyre had a lot of experience building temples, but the one’s he built, were all dedicated to worshiping “Ba' al Melkart”. I could never understand why Solomon would have aloud this foreign God believer, to build such a Holy temple, which was going too be dedicated, to the God that Solomon worshiped. Perhaps there were more political or geographical reasons, behind this move.

- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

I bypassed Marcion and don't go for the idea of two gods, unless you are talking about a made up, mythological god versus the real God. Maybe you can picture the situation by thinking of Mormons, how you have this dude who creates a mythology and says he is the only person who knows God, or whatever, and all these years later, you still have this people called Mormons no matter how many times it has been debunked. I don't feel like I need to make a theory to explain how the Mormon Jesus was the real Jesus and how now that we all know about his exploits in Central America, we can all just accept the two Jesus' as being the same Jesus and we just didn't understand him properly before. No because I can accept that Joseph Smith just made it up, so I don't have to created a method to reconcile the conflicting Jesus'.

I'm not a Macionite, nor am I Gnostic, I am just a liberal Christian who used to be a conservative Christian and explaining how that change came about, which is getting educated and trying to forget the brainwashing.

I am a Seventh Day Adventist, mainly because my great-grandmother, who was Prussian, was one and she was like hitler or something and made everyone in her family become members and that got passed on to me. Up until a few moths ago I thought everything was fine and I don't need to do anything in regards to church affiliation. I did a thread on the denomination and it seems no one on this forum knows much about it, but they believe like what you said, that the ten commandments were given directly from the mouth of God, to the ears of the Israelites, so we still have that law in effect, including the seventh day Sabbath, which is included in the denominational name (which is redundant). If you think about it, you have Abraham coming out of Ur of the Chaldees, which had a big, seven-stepped pyramid, each step representing one of the seven gods. The lowest one being Saturn, which is Hell. You have Moses in Egypt where they have a ten day week, well that is too many days and too many gods, so Israel had to get out of Egypt or God was going to kill them all. In the Septuagint, it says, "death by murder." So for me to think I need to worship the god of death and hell is a little problematic right now. The NT says Jesus came to free us from the fear of death, so why acknowledge death and hell when Revelation says those get cast into the lake of fire? Hmm. Now this is a habit of mine to recognize the Sabbath and if I am honest about it I have to admit I do it out of fear, pretty simple, so just that seems to me to be another bad indication.

One way to think about Baal is to think about Elijah (I got this from reading The Early History of God, which Pthena has informed me he is reading) where Elijah runs away from Jezebel and goes and lives with a woman who worships Baal. Baal back then was acceptable and was a local god but the Baal Jezebel worshiped was a foreign god, even if it had a similar name.

Regarding my posts from yesterday, I think you can put the two stories together, the one of Adam and Eve, and the one of the destruction of the temple by the Romans. To the people running the temple at that time (70 AD), they probably saw the Romans as the serpent in the garden, and the offerings they brought, fruit from the forbidden tree, so instead of causing the Jews to not fail like the old Judah, it actually cased them to fail, as far as being able to keep an intact temple goes.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I'm not a Macionite, nor am I Gnostic, I am just a liberal Christian who used to be a conservative Christian and explaining how that change came about, which is getting educated and trying to forget the brainwashing.

Over the past three years (before I believed in God) I started looking into what different Christian denominations believed, and why they believe it, especially the key differences in theology between the various denominations. I spoke with many “born again” Christians, at a local church, and also started researching and debating theology online, including here on ATS back in 2008. During my search, I had a religious experience while reading Jesus words in the bible, and I received the Holy Spirit; this is why I now believe in him, but I don’t belong to any church denomination, partly because I see so many problems with standard Christian theology.

This is why I tend to stay away from those deep religious arguments on ATS, and prefer to try to sow seeds in people’s minds, that there might be a God. Whatever they decide to believe in after that is up to them, but I will always point people in the direction of Jesus words, first and foremost. If for example they decided to become a Seventh day Adventist or a Jehovah’s witness, or a Catholic, etc then that would be fine with me, but I would never push anyone to believe in a specific theology, because, I don’t think it is my place to do so, and secondly, Christian theology is not as clear cut as most people make it out to be.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I am a Seventh Day Adventist, mainly because my great-grandmother, who was Prussian, was one and she was like hitler or something and made everyone in her family become members and that got passed on to me. Up until a few moths ago I thought everything was fine and I don't need to do anything in regards to church affiliation. I did a thread on the denomination and it seems no one on this forum knows much about it, but they believe like what you said, that the ten commandments were given directly from the mouth of God, to the ears of the Israelites, so we still have that law in effect, including the seventh day Sabbath, which is included in the denominational name (which is redundant).

This is the strange aspect to all of this, because Valentinus clearly accepts that the Ten Commandments came from God. But when it comes to the Eden story, the early Valentinian’s had very much a Gnostic interpretation. To the extent that if Valentinus had become the Bishop of Rome, then Christian theology would have looked very different, from what it is today.


Below is a pretty good short introduction to Valentinus…


Gnostic - Valentinians


I’m trying to find out if there were any analysis/writings or critiques on these other OT accounts of Eden, like Ezekiel 28, Isaiah, and a few other passages (I know there aren’t many) by these early Gnostic writers. There’s a lot of ground to cover and from what I have read so far, the Gnostics tended to focus more on an allegorical interpretation of the Eden story. The Gnostics did believe that there was indeed a “fall of man”, but they had a completely different interpretation on it.

But right now I’m looking for any references to Ezekiel 28, or verses in Isaiah, (the ones that cover these other Eden accounts) within the Gnostic texts. I know they view the Eden story differently than modern Christianity, but I cant help thinking that they must have been aware of these other accounts from the OT. I’m interested in trying to find some more clues, maybe someone who knows the Gnostic texts really well, can help me out.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
One way to think about Baal is to think about Elijah (I got this from reading The Early History of God, which Pthena has informed me he is reading) where Elijah runs away from Jezebel and goes and lives with a woman who worships Baal. Baal back then was acceptable and was a local god but the Baal Jezebel worshiped was a foreign god, even if it had a similar name.

Well, I can understand there being acceptance for other Gods, in order to keep political alliances and keep the peace etc…but allowing a believer in a foreign God to help build a sacred temple, where you are going to worship the God you believe in, seems a step to far to me. I mean, it’s kind of like a Muslim, asking a Buddhist monk, who has experience in building many Buddhist temples, if he would help him to build a new Mosque lol


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

Well, I can understand there being acceptance for other Gods, in order to keep political alliances and keep the peace etc…but allowing a believer in a foreign God to help build a sacred temple, where you are going to worship the God you believe in, seems a step to far to me. I mean, it’s kind of like a Muslim, asking a Buddhist monk, who has experience in building many Buddhist temples, if he would help him to build a new Mosque lol

You probably missed earlier posts by Pthena where he explains building a temple is idolatry in itself and against the Law of Moses, so it makes perfect sense to have a fellow idolater build a temple for you from a foreign country since if they were keeping the Law, they would know nothing about building temples.
Phena and myself are emphatically opposed to temple building because we understand the idolatrous nature of it.
The coming of the Lord was the destruction of the temple as foretold by Jesus in Mathew 24:15.

eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
Well, "Satan" is a non-starter, since Ezekiel wouldn't know who you're talking about. Worse, he'd think you were talking about the loyal servant of God with an especially thankless task.

Hmm. But Ezekiel is mentioning a character in Eden, and then drawing a parallel back to the King of Tyre. So if he’s not aware of Satan being in the Garden of Eden, then who is he referring too in Eden? But what you have to bear in mind, is that there are other prophetic utterances in the OT, of a person/entity that will be destroyed by fire, and Satan seems to fit the bill perfectly.

Originally posted by eight bits
I would see verse 18, which refers to no incident whatsoever in Genesis 3, as Ezekiel turning to other imagery of devastation to continue making his point, that the King of Tyre needs to straighten up. The purpose of any prophecy is to alter the listener's behavior. Maybe the king heeded the advice, and his sentence was suspended.

Yes, I agree, verse 18, is not referring to an incident happening in Genesis 3; it’s either incorrect prophecy concerning the King of Tyre, or it’s a prophetic account of Satan’s ultimate demise.

Originally posted by eight bits
In the alternative, the rules of fulfilment include realization in later generations. All prophetic catastrophic language is figurative. A prophet's "fire" needn't involve literal combustion.

I normally tend to look at verse figuratively or allegorically first before going for the literal, but in this particular case, I couldn’t see how else “fire” could be interpreted.

Originally posted by eight bits
If the King of Tyre goes down, then he'll take Tyre with him, and only Tyre. Snake habitat will continue unchanged, gynecology will continue unchanged, and agricultural productivity will continue unchanged. Adam and Eve went down, and everything changed - becoming what it is like Now.

Incidentally, the 13-year siege had a devastating knock on effect, on the economy and infrastructure of Tyre, which is why future kings were conquered/captured in later years. The overall effect on their economy had taken its toll, so there is some truth and logic, to what you have said above.


- JC

reply to post by pthena

Originally posted by Pthena
I think more than anything else, this pronouncing of doom upon Tyre, shows just how ate up with venom and hate Ezekiel really was. Rather than concluding like the woman in the documentary, that Eden story was invented to explain the destruction of Jerusalem temple, it's much more likely that Ezekiel was using an older story as hyperbole against Tyre.

Ezekiel was in Babylon as a hostage taken in an earlier deportation, previous to Jerusalem's destruction. After the destruction, he figured that all the other major cities were laughing about it (probably delusion). In a fit of rage against the imagined insult, Ezekiel pronounced total annihilation against Tyre (Chapter 26) by Nebuchadnezzar. This total annihilation didn't happen as Ezekiel pronounced it. He's a false prophet, and a mean and vindictive one at that.


Tyre is so much older than Jerusalem that it isn't funny. It's more likely that the king's garden in Tyre is Eden than that the temple in Jerusalem is. Most likely Eden is in Georgia close to the Black Sea.

First off, that was an awesome post…


I actually had no idea that Ezekiel was in Babylon, when he made that prophecy…A crucial element lol in trying to understand this passage…Thank you…


I highlighted your last paragraph because this is what I was thinking myself. Ezekiel may have not only been drawing a parallel with Satan in Eden, but he may have also been hinting towards the idea, that Eden was once situated in Tyre! But like you said, all that the documentary seemed to focus on, was that Eden was somehow once situated Jerusalem…


- JC