The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story

reply to post by Jim Scott


Why place a tree in the middle of a garden only made for you and two other people, then tell them they can't touch it? It does not make sense whatever way you twist the interpretation to fit the scripture.

Let's keep in mind that no matter how badly people want to prove God the bad guy or that he doesn't exist - that is beside the point and irrelevant. The FACT is and it is FACT - MAN wrote the bible NOT God. Yeah we can argue that God or Jesus told them what to write. SImply put - MAN is the one that put all this on paper.

What intelectual persons realise is that the Bible is NOT literal and was meeant to strike fear into the illiterate to force them to follow the teachings of the church. As an example Hell was to burn with fire and brimstone - AH a clue - this is what they used in cremations and it was what would scare them

So IF you believe God did this and made death threats then the good things is YOU BELIEVE IN GOD!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

A simple question that might be simply answered, why do those who believe in the old testament, Jewish, Christains, Muslims and Bahai, eat apples, particularly if God forbid them to do so?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by Pauligirl Did He not know what was going to happen?

yes, otherwise He's not God.

Why was the tree there?

There's some concepts that make sense.


1. Do you want automatons or creatures capable of being social interactive? Without the choice of failure, you can't have anything but automatons. Why would God want something like Himself that can't truly function like himself?

Then what was the whole point of the garden/tree thing ? God couldn’t make creatures capable of being social interactive without having to pull a snake apple scam on them? It was a setup. He knew what they were going to do and then punished them for it. It makes no sense.

Have you ever noticed the difference between those who have experienced their failures, but still learned to not fail in that same manner again and those who learn from other's mistakes? Yes, I'd prefer that we would learn without having to fail, but in all honesty, the lessons don't stick well, and compassion is not learned as well.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
"But Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they ate the Fruit!" you say.



It all starts to make sense now, doesn't it?

About as much as the idea of "the rapture."

Just a word of caution, any idea can be backed up by stacking an information deck, stacking cards in favor of an idea to support a preconceived notion.


With that said, now know this, a great idea is vetted by looking for counter points to test if the idea has any merit.

Any merit in your idea?

Maybe you should take a second look at what you wrote.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Why place a tree in the middle of a garden only made for you and two other people, then tell them they can't touch it? It does not make sense whatever way you twist the interpretation to fit the scripture.

It's because the story itself is an allegory. It was never meant to be taken as a literal tree or literal fruit. It symbolizes mankind being taught the truth about their spiritual nature and becoming self-aware. The whole narrative parallels similar myths in other traditions like the ancient Sumerian tradition.

Mankind was originally created to be ignorant beings without self-awareness, with the purpose only to "til the ground" in service to the "gods". Their nakedness represented their slavery status and lack of awareness, and ignorance regarding anything spiritual, ethical, or moral. This is reflected in both the Sumerian version of events as well as the Judeo-Christian version and the parallels between the two are astounding.

The "gods" had willful servants for a time up until another divine being entered the scene and gave mankind the gift of truth about their spiritual nature, and about good and evil, right and wrong. This is why their eyes were "opened' to the fact that they were naked. A common misinterpretation of the Adam and Eve story is that the “original sin” had something to do with sex or nudity. It was not nudity that shamed them. Adam and Eve were mortified by what their nakedness represented.

Ancient Mesopotamian records depict human beings stark naked when performing tasks for their gods. The gods, on the other hand, were depicted as being fully clothed. The implication is that Adam and Eve felt degraded by their nakedness because it was a sign of their enslavement - not because being naked in itself is bad.

"And the Lord’ God said. Look, the man has become as one of us, knowing good
from evil: and now, what if he puts forth his hand, and takes also of the tree of
life, and eats, and lives forever?" Genesis 3:22

The above passage reveals an important truth echoed by many religions. A true understanding
of ethics, integrity, and justice is a prerequisite to regaining one’s spiritual freedom and
immortality.

The gods clearly did not want mankind to begin traveling the road to spiritual recovery.The reason is obvious. The gods wanted slaves. It is difficult to make thralls of people who maintain their integrity and sense of ethics. It becomes impossible when those same individuals are uncowed by physical threats due to a reawakened grasp of their spiritual immortality. Most importantly, if spiritual beings could no longer be trapped in human bodies, but could instead use and abandon bodies at will, there would be no spiritual beings available to animate slave bodies.

Sumerian tablets reveal that the gods' intention was to permanently attach spiritual beings to human bodies. Early man’s attempt to escape this spiritual bondage by "eating" from the Biblical "trees" therefore had to be stopped.

"Therefore the Lord God sent him [Adam] forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim [angels], and a flaming sword which turned every way, to shield the way to the tree of life."
Genesis 3:23-24

The "flaming sword" symbolizes the no-nonsense measures that the gods undertook to ensure that genuine spiritual knowledge would never become available to the human race. To further prevent access to such knowledge, mankind was condemned to an additional fate:

"And to Adam, he [God] said,
Because you have listened to the urgings of your wife,
and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to, saying,
You shall not partake of it: cursed is the ground for you, in
toil will you eat its yield for all the days of your life:
Thorns, too, and thistles will it bring forth to you;
as you eat the plants from the field: By the sweat of
your face will you eat bread, until you return to the ground; for out of it were you
taken: for dust you are and to dust will you return."
Genesis 3:17-19

This was a highly effective way to deal with Adam’s and Eve’s "original sin." The above passage indicates that gods intended to make humans live their entire lives and die without ever rising above the level of arduous material existence. That would leave humans little time to seek out the understanding they needed to become spiritually free.

reply to post by anoncoholic


Souls tainted by occult practices?

That sounds like a religious control talking point.

reply to post by SilentKoala

The Adam and Eve Story may be a nice teaching tool but it was never a reality. Two people do not have the genetic diversity to populate the planet as their childrens interbreeding whould make them sterile as well as present birth defects.

The Evolution of Humans has been going on for Millions of years and is still going on. Anyone who is so attached to the literal words in the Bible needs to look at facts. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


That's assuming that the DNA was as flawed back then as other bottlenecks that we have now (re: Cheetah). Data's based upon the knowledge of the DNA that is accessible now. Really old DNA is so degraded it's hard to make heads or tails of the mess. Really recent DNA (when most DNA tested has been pulled from) is a post-industrialized society. The amount of Lead in the air alone, when it was used in gasoline, was enough to change your DNA and pass on birth defects to your kids. Frankly, we don't even know how "self-repairable" DNA actually is.

Besides, if Evolution is REAL, then such a Bottleneck shouldn't automatically kill the population off, as some mutations are supposed to make us a new species. So, without Adam and Eve, the theories in place account for Adam and Eve being a possibility.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

The Biblical account of Adam and Eve was of a description of either Cro Magnon or Homosapien...it is very difficult to tell the difference between the two species as we were at one time Cro Magnon and Evolved into Homosapiens.

Still...we know that we evolved from other older common ancestors as well as there being a bit of interbreeding between Cro Magnon and Neandethal...which was a dead end evolution wise. It would not matter if for arguement sake that their DNA was supposedly pure...they would not have enough diversity geneticly to populate the earth...period. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


*drily* And then, why do we have that diversity, for as long as we've been here? We know that H. Sapiens has bottle-necked before (that's where Mitochondrial EVE likely came from, as well as the Adam equivalent; no real proof that they are not H. Sapiens). Simply, we have how many people to draw DNA from, vs. how many representations of each of the other species, that are supposed to be dead. For each skeleton found, how many break down before being found? We may not have the full scope of their genetic diversity, for one.

Another is that I'm amused that we assume that all fertile viable H. Sapiens have the same amount of chromosomes. There's some species that don't even have that stability.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Well...first off...after maping the entire Human Genome as well as mapping many other species genomes...we came to a realization...we could see parts of the Human Genome as having the same Viral Dna as other species thus it proves we all came from a common ancestor. Split Infinity

reply to post by SilentKoala

It's because the story itself is an allegory. It was never meant to be taken as a literal tree or literal fruit. It symbolizes mankind being taught the truth about their spiritual nature and becoming self-aware. The whole narrative parallels similar myths in other traditions like the ancient Sumerian tradition.

And of course, it couldn't be a Rewriting of the myth, a sort of parody of it's original meaning?

Mankind was originally created to be ignorant beings without self-awareness, with the purpose only to "til the ground" in service to the "gods".

At what point, historically speaking, was man "created ignorant"? Are you now interpreting the "allegory" literally?

Their nakedness represented their slavery status and lack of awareness, and ignorance regarding anything spiritual, ethical, or moral.

This is the same interpretation given to the verse by Leon Kass (a professor of sociology and bioethics at Chicago University), and it makes sense, since read ontologically the narrative implies just that: The Edenic state is pure unconsciousness: to become conscious is to exit the realm of Eden and enter the land east of it. The serpent, as I stated earlier, is probably best understood as a symbol for self sufficiency afforded by autonomous human reason. The cunningness of the snake, Aroom in Hebrew, which is similar to the word for nakedness, could then allude to the power of reason to strip the external world of it's primordial enchantments, that special allure, revealing and exposing the 'nakedness' 'of the outer world.

The serpent awakens consciousness out of it's unconscious slumbering, stirring it to ask questions - which is a good thing. The fallacy however is in it's absurd contention: you could be AS GOD. Something so bold could not be true. Nevertheless, the feminine principle, Eve (chavah in Hebrew, related to a word for life), which could well correspond to the firey longing to know, responds. She's aroused by the reasons intimations of something to be known, something withheld from man by providence. The fruit eaten reveals mans condition. His NEEDS become apparent. Hence, he is vested with clothing by God for his protection. Adam and Eve may have eaten of the fruit and temporarily succumbed to folly of autonomous human reason, but they learned that if they were to survive, they would need more (which is to say, there was divine purpose and value in the serpents deception) then mere human reason, but they would have to bridge that gap between man and the infinite, between himself and the awesome, by recognizing the Power beyond himself. THAT is sanity.

Notice that Adam and Eve's first children, Cain and Abel, each correspond to basic archetypal states present within man: Cayin (Cain), which means to possess (and so would correspond to the Ego) and Hevel (Abel) which means 'vapor' (which would correspond to the spirit). The spiritual archetype, or personality type, if you will, of Hevel, stands no chance against the egotist of Cayin: Cayin easily destroys him, relinquishing all spiritual consideration for his brothers blood, or for any spiritual concerns altogether. Cayin is cast outside the community (which could say, becomes isolated) and settles, ironically, in the land of Nod (which means to wander) where he builds a city and names it after his son Enoch. The city is the invention of the Ego: the desire to possess leads to possession of the outside world, fully realized and maximized by aggregating humans into collectives to establish cities. The name of the city, Enoch, also alludes to the essential purpose of the city: to educate (enoch means to educate, instruct).

The Bible is a mighty interesting book. Such a shame it doesn't get more credit.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Problem is that if you have a common designer, they'd do the same thing. So this means nothing.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I would like to know what opinions the OP is putting forth as facts.

What I see, are truthful discussions of magical and spiritual theories, as practiced and understood by Jewish Qabalists and Christian mystics. These are then aligned with ancient pagan magical practices, like the study of herbs, astrology, and alchemy, which did develop into modern scientific disciplines. All of this is then put to use interpreting a single myth from a book containing many pagan myths, and spiritual practices. In the end, the OP arrives at the conclusion the pagan faiths would have.

Just because the conclusion goes against what you have been taught to believe does not mean it is fraudulent. The entirety of the Jewish and Christian religion is plagiarized from ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Hattian, and Greek spiritual practices, and mythological beliefs. The Garden of Eden is a pagan-influenced myth detailing the ascent of man from simple species, to spiritual beings. You can find similar accounts in dying-and-rising god myths all over the middle-east.

~ Wandering Scribe

As far as I can see , the being known popularly as GOD , has a hell of a lot to answer for .
Wars have been fought in his name .
Mass murder has been committed in his name.
He is the cause of all bigotry.
He is wrathful , dishonest and apathetic .


Plus , anybody born after the 60's knows that " The devil has all the good music " .


Peace .

DP

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Why place a tree in the middle of a garden only made for you and two other people, then tell them they can't touch it? It does not make sense whatever way you twist the interpretation to fit the scripture.

It's because the story itself is an allegory. It was never meant to be taken as a literal tree or literal fruit. It symbolizes mankind being taught the truth about their spiritual nature and becoming self-aware. The whole narrative parallels similar myths in other traditions like the ancient Sumerian tradition.

Mankind was originally created to be ignorant beings without self-awareness, with the purpose only to "til the ground" in service to the "gods". Their nakedness represented their slavery status and lack of awareness, and ignorance regarding anything spiritual, ethical, or moral. This is reflected in both the Sumerian version of events as well as the Judeo-Christian version and the parallels between the two are astounding.

The "gods" had willful servants for a time up until another divine being entered the scene and gave mankind the gift of truth about their spiritual nature, and about good and evil, right and wrong. This is why their eyes were "opened' to the fact that they were naked. A common misinterpretation of the Adam and Eve story is that the “original sin” had something to do with sex or nudity. It was not nudity that shamed them. Adam and Eve were mortified by what their nakedness represented.

Ancient Mesopotamian records depict human beings stark naked when performing tasks for their gods. The gods, on the other hand, were depicted as being fully clothed. The implication is that Adam and Eve felt degraded by their nakedness because it was a sign of their enslavement - not because being naked in itself is bad.

"And the Lord’ God said. Look, the man has become as one of us, knowing good
from evil: and now, what if he puts forth his hand, and takes also of the tree of
life, and eats, and lives forever?" Genesis 3:22

The above passage reveals an important truth echoed by many religions. A true understanding
of ethics, integrity, and justice is a prerequisite to regaining one’s spiritual freedom and
immortality.

The gods clearly did not want mankind to begin traveling the road to spiritual recovery.The reason is obvious. The gods wanted slaves. It is difficult to make thralls of people who maintain their integrity and sense of ethics. It becomes impossible when those same individuals are uncowed by physical threats due to a reawakened grasp of their spiritual immortality. Most importantly, if spiritual beings could no longer be trapped in human bodies, but could instead use and abandon bodies at will, there would be no spiritual beings available to animate slave bodies.

Sumerian tablets reveal that the gods' intention was to permanently attach spiritual beings to human bodies. Early man’s attempt to escape this spiritual bondage by "eating" from the Biblical "trees" therefore had to be stopped.

"Therefore the Lord God sent him [Adam] forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim [angels], and a flaming sword which turned every way, to shield the way to the tree of life."
Genesis 3:23-24

The "flaming sword" symbolizes the no-nonsense measures that the gods undertook to ensure that genuine spiritual knowledge would never become available to the human race. To further prevent access to such knowledge, mankind was condemned to an additional fate:

Genesis 3:17-19

Quote removed

This was a highly effective way to deal with Adam’s and Eve’s "original sin." The above passage indicates that gods intended to make humans live their entire lives and die without ever rising above the level of arduous material existence. That would leave humans little time to seek out the understanding they needed to become spiritually free.

You realize its a allegorical story, but then you read into it something about spiritual meanings and self awareness which is what the literalistic interpreters of the text try to suggest. Btw a chimp is self aware, do you know the meaning? en.wikipedia.org... You really think that's what the texts implies? It's simply a story about the dawn of civilization and the ability of others being able to engineer plans of how to deceive others. To enslave them, to gain wealth and power over them, at the expense of their labors by limiting a person's means of self sufficiency and protection. Nothing more, nothing less.

reply to post by SilentKoala


Truth is……..the tree was never kept from them….hummm
So is there something more ……

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

I find it despicably irritating that "God" has a tendency to speak from HIS point of view, not bothering to rephrase for OUR understanding.
.

Mark 4:34 "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."

Starchild, your worldview has convinced you that the 'Christianity' that you read about and the churches that you see are what the Bible is... When in reality, they are miles apart now. Scripture is a kind of training ground for lack of a better word, a place that is very frank and disturbing to anyone who picks them up to read for the first time. Why? It has a habit of showing one what they want to see. If a non-believer opens it, and they think that the Creator is unfair, unjust and evil, it's going to give one exactly that impression. If a non-believer comes into it without such hostility in the heart, it slowly starts to work on that person. As it is stated above, when Jesus "was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything." They desired to know. If one doesn't desire to know, it is never explained to a reader. Scripture is to be read and thought about, mused over, added to other scripture, and finally prayed about. Praying about it, asking for understanding, is how it is explained to a believer. There is no difference in being a disciple standing in front of Jesus 2,000 years ago, and today when He's with us in spirit. Understanding is proportional to the time invested. Your understanding of Christianity, along with millions of others, is given by the world which equates it to a religion of the church. This is to divorce you from the truth of the matter, and once the truth is known, that we strive for a personal relationship with God, then perhaps you can separate your thoughts of scripture and the religious churches. They are not the same. Christ's Kingdom here on Earth is a collection of bodies who maintain Faith and who obey His commandments. It's an ongoing relationship, and we all learn and understand at different paces as He reveals more and more. Many of these believers have removed themselves from physical churches because they are so infected by Babylon's teachings.

You find it dispicable that God didn't give YOU understanding. But why would he when your whole belief system is centred on what He is not, what He despises or what He rejects? Think about it, if you reject the truth for made up lies, this is the very reason that scripture states why people are given up. They never learned to love and value truth.