Did Eve have sex with Lucifer in the Garden of Eden?

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I am drawing the line by looking for the interpretation that makes the most sense, and leaves the whole thing least tangled.
…
A metaphorical snake is introduced for the purpose.
…
…

Ok, but how does making the snake that tempted Eve Metaphorical ease the interpretation…What’s the big problem with making that part literal as well, considering that the snake becomes literal anyway, during the bruising part, further on in the story…?

If the snake is literal in one place, then it’s quite natural to make it literal in the other…unless there’s some major problem…


- JC

A snake does not eat dust. Maybe a Worm would. But a Worm is not a snake or a serpent.

Genesis only describes that the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. It does not describe the beast to be a snake.


A question you all should think about: Did Lord God cast out the woman or did Lord God just cast out Adam?

Adam was the only living thing that was made from the dust on the ground. The woman was not. The woman was formed from Adams Rib in the garden of Eden. And genesis verse 23 does state this:

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

I don't think the Garden of Eden ever existed in real life, but it sure exists in cultural space. So you are looking for possible hidden meanings in the myth, which itself is powerful enough to shape society. Find the hidden meanings and you can pull peoples strings like puppets.

a reply to: veracity

I think Atlantis is Australia.

Think of the extinction of Australian megafauna.

en.wikipedia.org...

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

~ Genesis 6:4

Bible conspiracy theorists usually seem to think of the giants as the sons God. If you try to figure the literal meaning behind this verse, giants = sons of God, is not explicitly stated in the syntax of this verse, so putting these 2 words together may be erroneous, in my opinion.

I don't think God would sink a whole continent, because that would mean God was destroying an extremely great part of creation, like it was nothing to God, no? I don't think God would do that, because creating a continent must have been a very arduous process, to take great pride in, and to just wipe it ALL out in some supernatural flash flood doesn't make sense to me. Call me a cock-eyed optimist if you like...

I usually think more about Lemuria, more than Atlantis, in regards to LOST continents.

Just thinking about it symmetrically, look on a map....

You have:
Greenland/Baffin islands in the middle; (1)
North America as the mate of Eurasia; (2)
South America as the mate of Africa; (2)

But who is the mate of Australia??? (1)

It can't be Antarctica, as the 7th island in the sea, can it? That doesn't seem correct...

If you think about a flight from Sydney to L.A., it seems like there is too much ocean in that area...

a reply to: spy66

Considering this verse...

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

~ Genesis 3:19

This sounds to me like the process of living on a farm and growing and harvesting grains. Many people may regard returning to dust as the decomposition of flesh and bone. But I think dust is a reference to blood. Out of the ground could also be a reference to the iron rich interior of planet earth, such as iron rich blood.

Considering this verse...

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

~ Genesis 2:7

Of course, we do not know this as the process of procreation...

Curious words I find regarding Genesis 2:7 are: formed of dust.

Thinking about forming things from dust, what comes to me is the process of an atom (dust) absorbing a photon (light):

I liken dust to an atom (or Adam!) In an atom, the nucleus is made of protons (that are of a positive charge) and neutrons (that have no charge); and rotating around the nucleus are electrons (that are of a negative charge equal to the amount that the protons are of a positive charge);

and photons (generally said to be light with no mass) are bound by their interactions with protons and electrons;

What I am trying to show here, is that the relationship between atoms and photons, I think it is comparable, among other things, to the process by which man was formed from dust, using light.

This thread is about the story of the, "serpent," who beguiled Eve to "eat the fruit" of knowledge of good and evil; then Eve convinced Adam he could "eat the fruit" of knowledge of good and evil, which could make Eve and Adam as gods. What happened to the serpent after it beguiled Eve?

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"

~ Genesis 3:14

Hey funny coincidence... verse 3:14... PI 'd Piper... ya?

Anyway, there is the word, dust, again. I figure, light and dust is like flesh and blood. Was this a subtle way of saying the, "serpent," needs to live on earth by feeding its belly with blood (as in dust)?

a reply to: spy66

Many mock the Genesis story, which says woman was made from man's rib. But could a rib just mean the inside of man, which is a reference to duality between man and woman.

I think man exists male on the outside, and female on the inside;

and I think woman exists female on the outside, but male on the inside.

Therefore, man exists negative on the outside, and positive on the inside; and woman exists positive on the outside, and negative on the inside.

I think this verse, AMONG OTHER THINGS, appropriately scribes this duality:

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

~ Genesis 1:16

Among other things, I analyze this as:

greater is increasing: positive; Adam, sounds like day; man is to rule based on his inside (like saying: go with your gut), the inside of man is female; female is positive; man was created to rule the day;

lesser is decreasing: negative; Eve sounds like evening; woman is also to rule based on her inside (like saying: go with your gut), the inside of woman exists male; male is negative; woman was created to rule the night.

An explicit example of this would be to sex:

Men's supply of sperm is infinite, at least until death, and this is inwardly positive. But if men use their sperm outwardly, with as many people as they please, their women mates might react negatively to it, and it may be negative behavior when it comes to raising and nurturing a family.

Women's eggs are finite, and this is inwardly negative. But women might prefer monogamous sex, and this tends to be a more positive way to raise and nurture a family.

a reply to: InachMarbank

confusing. Why does it have to be God that sunk Atlantis?

If your God is my nature...then nature just took its course. We have free will and our Earth is affected by it.

I can't quite comprehend what Christians call God bc its so vague. Is he a person? A judgmental face in the sky? A light? An energy? Karma? Is he a snake? a being? what sort of being?

they used to tell me in church that he is everywhere...yes but how?

Bc he is nature, he is in us bc we are part of nature.

So if God is a force of nature...he would most certainly sink a continent for he gives us free will and we (im speaking in the term of human kind or during Atlantean times mermaid/centaur-kind) used it to destroy our mother Earth.

We are destroying it now, history repeats itself.

a reply to: InachMarbank

I read somewhere in a book that the perfect body form is one that has both vagina and penis. I know that sounds absurd to us today, but if you are a hermo, then you are probably going to get to stay in "heaven/the other side" forever when you die and not have to reincarnate back to earth.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: InachMarbank



I can't quite comprehend what Christians call God bc its so vague. Is he a person? A judgmental face in the sky? A light? An energy? Karma? Is he a snake? a being? what sort of being?

.

Would you believe me if I told you he is a robot?
Yeah I was pretty shocked when I found out myself.









......Late april fools.....


..Unless he really is a robot

Hypergamy; as much a part of the female now as it has always been.

a reply to: veracity

Lots of contracts (leases, mortgages, insurance policies) call natural disasters acts of God.

Also, if you wanted to sink an entire continent, what would you do, raise the sea level overall? Wouldn't this sink most land on all the continents?

Nah, natural disasters are more like earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornadoes, I think. I've never heard of a natural disaster that sunk an entire continent.

Even Genesis 7:20 says the waters prevailed only around 25 feet upward. Sounds like big tsunami waves.

I've tried to debate Genesis 7:20 with Christians, and their position generally seems to be, God sunk the whole world, so the 25 feet figure must have been how high the water was over Mount Everest. Seems pretty far fetched. Then how did it dry so fast after the flood???

I like to think of GOD or God or god as an acronym for an organization

GREATEST/Greater/great
Oppositional
Defiance

And I like to think of all Gods as being people in an organization.

What if I said I think Mother Earth, the iron planet, is an indestructible inanimate object in motion that will always be.

a reply to: veracity

Not sure...

I imagine our... uh... body doubles... are not as mobile above, as below, and have roots like trees or something...

I guess becoming a god, or God, or GOD might be growing enough responsibility to detach from these roots...

I think lots of the Christian cults sell the same idea, but I wouldn't want to go down that Christian rabbit hole because I think the Christian God has suicide as a term/condition for becoming a god.

Suicide sure seems UNnatural, ya?

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Hypergamy: the action of marrying a person of a superior class or caste.

Is that what Eve was trying to do with a son of God?

Or did Eve get raped?

Seems like that is a debate going on here...

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the Garden of Eden ever existed in real life, but it sure exists in cultural space. So you are looking for possible hidden meanings in the myth, which itself is powerful enough to shape society. Find the hidden meanings and you can pull peoples strings like puppets.

The garden of eden never existed on Earth. In Genesis chapt. 3 verse 24. Eden is also referd to as Eden Cherubims.

Look up Cherubims.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Considering this verse...

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Personally i don't think Lod God made Adam from the dust on the ground. Because later Lord God states that Adam was taken. Adam was to be sent back from where he was taken. That is mentioned in Chapter 3 verse 23. Why wouldnt it say from where he was formed?

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

I think Lord God Tok Adam from Earth (Planet Earth) and brought him to Eden Cherubims (somehwere else byond Earth).

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I think it's obvious enough how a literal talking snake is a problem in interpretation. Do you find it easy to believe? Genuinely?

And a literal snake bruising heads and having offspring with Eve, isn’t a problem…???

I see it as all metaphor and deeply symbolic, so I don’t have those same problems…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
And a literal snake bruising heads and having offspring with Eve, isn’t a problem…???

But I'm not the one advocating the "offspring with Eve" theory, am I? I am not the OP in this thread.

a reply to: spy66

Originally posted by spy66
A snake does not eat dust. Maybe a Worm would. But a Worm is not a snake or a serpent.

The “eat dust” part is symbolic of living in death. This is also why the snake symbol was chosen, because it crawls on the ground and lives near to Sheol or the grave…

But the snake can also stand/coil upwards i.e. gets lifted up, symbolically towards heaven. This is reflected in the Story of Moses and the “bronze serpent”, where it gets lifted up on a pole to heal the people…


- JC

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
But I'm not the one advocating the "offspring" theory, am I? I am not the OP in this thread.

But you said in your post below…that you believe the snake bruising part is literal…

The snake bruising part, is in direct relation to the offspring part, found in Genesis 3:15…???

Genesis 3:15
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Here’s your post below, just for clarity…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
In one of my replies to the OP, I suggested "splitting" the interpretation, making the "serpent tempted Eve" metaphorical, and the bruising business literal.
…

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
I will respond by repeating what I replied to you three or four posts back;

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I am drawing the line by looking for the interpretation that makes the most sense, and leaves the whole thing least tangled.
The basic story of the temptation is an aetiological, or "origin", story, explaining the origin of death and everything else that is wrong with the world. A metaphorical snake is introduced for the purpose. Once there's a "snake" element in the story, the writer takes the opportunity of attaching to it an observation about literal snakes in their relationship with men and including that in the explanations.

Do you want to keep going round in circles?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Many mock the Genesis story, which says woman was made from man's rib. But could a rib just mean the inside of man, which is a reference to duality between man and woman.

It is hard to say what this would mean. But what it does mean is that the woman was not made from dust like Adam was.
And woman was also not formed on Earth, but in Eden Cherubims.