The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story

Ten thousand contradictory opinions, and not one believer.

Really?

Am I the only one here that simply believes what the King James Bible says, and not some half-arsed opinion on it? Why can't you accept what God's word says? Why do you have to twist the Scriptures in order to accept it? That's playing god, don't do that.

God is not the author of confusion! (1 Cor 14:33)

reply to post by SilentKoala


Explain this> www.sacred-texts.com... based on your interpretaions?

The truth is the story is about power and control over others.

If a ruler owns all the resources and the accesses to resources along with all the permissions to obtain such items as coverings, cloths for instance then the ruler can also shame people into thinking they need to acquire cloths.

Shaming people into acquiring material items deemed necessary and defined by the establishment. Heck the establishment does that very thing today shaming people into thinking they have to work their As off so they may acquire a set standard of living defined by the wealthy establishment, the commerce community, as money is power of speech and thus the ultimate in cultural influence as people are programed as a society by such influence. People who will collectively in cult like fashion peer pressure the cultural nonparticipant into complying with the collective cult's norms in holding out that most sought after emotional commodity, acceptance, being accepted by others. Shaming those who aren't wearing the latest fashions is only one tool of the trade today. It's a mad mad "Mad Men" world out there and so somebody has to advertise the shame just like the snake did in the garden.


Edit addition:

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.

I guess you're saying the same thing. I think.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Check here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by SilentKoala

 

Fascinating stuff !but I have always wondered why the apple as the forbidden fruit?What is it about the apple in history that it's either poisoness or forbidden?has anyone ever attempted to explain this?Any ideas?

Another thing I don't understand with this story is why should we ever be ashamed of our nakedness if we are what God created?

.

edit on 21-5-2012 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2012 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)

There is nothing in the Bible that states that the forbidden fruit was an apple. The type of fruit is likely unimportant, because the issue was disobedience. God could have just as easily said they were not allowed to move a certain rock, or wash in a particular creek.

The fruit is a metaphor for knowledge. Knowledge of how to have power and control over others for the benefit of the controller at the expense of the controlled.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

Check here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everything is written as an absolute. Absolutely.

reply to post by SilentKoala


Have you considered the Sumerian tales to be false? I think that any super intelligent being would use robots for slaves instead mankind because robots are much more productive and obedient.

eta: Have you seen the video of the white haired woman recounting what some guy had said to her about how "the government would use the threat of an alien attack to bring on one world government"? In that same video she says "they would also use a fake discovery of old information". (bad paraphrasing) I think that's exactly what the Sumerian tablets are.

eta again: it may have not been the white haired woman it may have been some other interview. I'll see if I can find it.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Sumerian tablets (10' of 1000s of them) had so many stories of which the bible seems to be a tiny tiny fraction of them compiled into one group ie a very brief summary. Wouldn't it be more sensible to work with ALL of the tablets so far studied rather than a tiny bit of them? No, don't bother answering, the "but THEY (the tiny few) have been inspired by god" is weak and insipid. This sort of argument are based on dogma. He believes, she believes etc. Well, I believe that there is a massive, gigantic toaster (honour be to thee thou great and mighty toaster) orbiting out around near the asteroid belt and every now and then it (hbtttdamt) spits out space ships that come towards earth. What!? sounds silly?? Why? I believe it and I'm sure that all those that don't will have their life force sucked out to it just after they die and it will be burned up in the blazing coils. Please, give me the same respect that you and all of the other christians, muslims and other dogmatists on here expect.
Blessed be to you and all other dogma members,

oh and

The name of the lady is Carol Rosin and was on Disclosure Project 2001. Seemed pretty up front about what she had to say.

reply to post by steve1709


You're being just as closed minded as the religious who you're judging. Why couldn't that 10' be inspired by Abraham or someone alive during that time? Not that that was my thought. My thought is that they may be fake artifacts all together.

Lol BTW. Do you know the interview which has the man or woman who discusses them using a fake archeological discovery to further the nwo? I wish I had bookmarked that interview.

reply to post by SilentKoala


The voice in the garden was seraphim. Not god.

the interesting thing about the adam and eve story is that they didnt know that it was wrong or bad to disobey god until after they ate from the tree of knowledge. Before eating from the tree of knowledge they had no concept of good and bad.God punished them for doing something which they were completely ignorant of and not capable of comprehending.
If everything that god created has a purpose then what was the purpose of the tree of life and tree of knowledge if adam and eve were not allowed to eat from them?
if an insect ate from the the trees would those insects live forever and gain the knowledge of good and evil?

I find this interpretation of the Garden of Eden story fascinating.

I believe there to be truth in many stories in the Bible, and when you consider that this is one of the most important stories that may give insight into our beginnings, it's no surprise that we should look at all potential interpretations of the meaning behind it.

I have to admit, you must question God's intentions here. I can't help but pull the story into modern contexts. If we just imagine for a moment that we were created by an extra terrestrial presence who wanted to keep us under control, this is exactly how it would look.

We were told not to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge - if God wanted us to not eat that, why would it be put in the Garden of Eden? Why wouldn't it have been hidden? It must have clearly been a metaphor for something that is visible and accessible by everyone with or without God's choice.

The only thing in this situation that God could do would be to tell Adam & Eve that they would die should they 'eat' from the tree of knowledge. One similar thing comes to mind here, which are drugs such as '___'.

The government tells us that we will die or severely risk our health by taking such drugs, however scientists and researchers all make clear their abilities to alter our awareness, potentially giving way for enlightening experiences, much like the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Not exactly the same, but similar in my opinion.

Just my 2c.

reply to post by SilentKoala


I appreciate and applaud your use of rationality to examine the story as told. But there is a deeper, more subtle story being told than even you have seen. I have only seen it because I was shown it by the author of existence; NOT Christianity's "God", by the way. DISCLAIMER: I do not claim that the Creator speaks to me more than any other man or woman. I only claim to have learned to listen more closely than many of my fellow humans.

This will bake your noodle.
What both spiritual beings said about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was true, after a fashion. A death is a separation from life. Perhaps you don't believe in the continuity of consciousness, and that is your right and duty, of course, as long as it is your genuine conviction. However, in the world I see and live in, consciousness is the origin of matter, and not the other way around. Consciousness is primal and endless. It is the motion of an infinity groping to understand itself. The more autoreflective a point of view becomes, the more we say it is 'self-aware' or 'sentient'. Consciousness is what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object.

All that to say that Both the authoritarian AND the serpent were right. The authoritarian was right in that there was a separation from fulfilling communion with the infinity, when the humans began to doubt the good intentions of the source of existence toward them (note, this source is not the authoritarian himself; the authoritarian is merely the faithful servant of the Infinite). The serpent was right in that there was no physical separation from physical life. So now we have for the first time in the history of our species, the occurrence of living death, the same state most people live in on a daily basis. It is this state that accounts for all suffering in this world. It is this state that the Ego (personality, separate identity) finds hospitable to its machinations, to the great delight of the gods.

You might think that living death is an awful thing. It is neither good nor bad. It is a tool that Infinity is using to better understand Itself. It is a state of awareness that is full of all sorts of exciting emotions, such as fear, hope, jealousy, rage, anger, eros, fondness, pity, and compassion (for an "other"). It has been said (and i forget who said it) that all emotions besides unconditional love are but permutations of fear. I tend to agree.

Basically, Adam and Eve were both dead before that fruit ever touched their lips. They died when they separated themselves from Infinity by receiving the accusation of the Serpent (who is also the faithful servant of the Infinite, do not be deceived into thinking otherwise). This was a necessary step in the development of the consciousness of our species. It was not good or evil. In a very real sense, everything that happens is The Highest Good, as everything that happens, happens for the benefit of the self-searching Infinity at the center of existence. When all that Is, is accepted and loved unconditionally as the manifest intention of the Infinite, you find the truth that sets you free, that Jesus spoke about, and that Paul never knew. Evil is a delusion. Evil (as perceived) is the invention of a mind desperate to maintain its separation from the Source of existence. The idea of Evil has been most useful (think "Time Bandits").

The law is One: what you do, you do to yourself. This law applies to everyone from the lowest stone to the Infinite Itself. It's like gravity. It is not a law to be obeyed or disobeyed. It is either recognized to your succor or ignored to your pain. Adam and Eve forgot the law, which they had known instinctively, and the great struggle of the human race has been to remember the Law and consciously choose to reconnect to the Source. This reconnection can only come through acceptance of All That Is as the thoroughly good and perfect will of the Omnibenevolent source of existence. It is plainly time that this information comes out, since I am typing these words right now. So what are you going to do with it?

You can visit the links in my signature for more information along these lines, but frankly this post is one of the most succinct treatments on the Law that I have ever read. I say read, because I don't feel like I can claim to be its author. It's too good.

We live in exciting times.

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.

Why put any dangerous object, (insert any modern day object) with the same proscription that it NOT be touched, and tell an 'innocent, unaware, "naked to knowledge"...child...to NOT touch it...
...answer...
...because it is a dangerous object and shouldn't be touched/eaten/whatever...

I have watched this thread degenerate into idiotic interpretations of the psychology/the inner workings of the intents and purposes of 3 main players...

Children often 'disobey' the warnings of thier parents...some of the activities from which they are being warned do put them in mortal danger...

...on mortality...
The word means, subject to death...

This is what was warned against...this is what transpired...who lied?

...ever heard the expression...'a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing'?
This is what was warned against...FREE WILL was extended to the ability to choose whether or not to obey...from that moment on, the results of FREE WILL in a mortal case of atomic slime have been played out according to that one simple piece of 'knowledge/fruit'...

To be a consciousness without a material body (which breaks down according to locum principles) would be like living in a 'garden of eden'...
To then be clothed in this sheath of skin (which breaks down according to locum principles), which needs energy provided by similarly 'solid' elements...
To then need to migrate from sheath of skin to sheath of skin, with the same consciousness...probably would seem like a really, really cruel joke...but then, the ball was pushed down the hill in the garden...the rest is history...

Alove

Originally posted by tgwright
I find this interpretation of the Garden of Eden story fascinating.

I believe there to be truth in many stories in the Bible, and when you consider that this is one of the most important stories that may give insight into our beginnings, it's no surprise that we should look at all potential interpretations of the meaning behind it.

I have to admit, you must question God's intentions here. I can't help but pull the story into modern contexts. If we just imagine for a moment that we were created by an extra terrestrial presence who wanted to keep us under control, this is exactly how it would look.

We were told not to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge - if God wanted us to not eat that, why would it be put in the Garden of Eden? Why wouldn't it have been hidden? It must have clearly been a metaphor for something that is visible and accessible by everyone with or without God's choice.

The only thing in this situation that God could do would be to tell Adam & Eve that they would die should they 'eat' from the tree of knowledge. One similar thing comes to mind here, which are drugs such as '___'.

The government tells us that we will die or severely risk our health by taking such drugs, however scientists and researchers all make clear their abilities to alter our awareness, potentially giving way for enlightening experiences, much like the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Not exactly the same, but similar in my opinion.

Just my 2c.

Hi TG

re We were told not to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge - if God wanted us to not eat that, why would it be put in the Garden of Eden? Why wouldn't it have been hidden?

Maybe because there could have been "more than one god" ie there were a group of beings but some had different ideas. Maybe one of them DID want humans to have knowledge, maybe "eating of the fruit of knowledge" really meant being shown stuff. ie "figuratively" ingesting actual facts. What if ONE god DIDN'T want humans to know or was ordered NOT to let humans know? All seems to make a lot of sense hey? But all of this is really just an aside. The OP had just put forward an article showing who could have been the good guy and who could have been the bad guy. Maybe there were both good guys and bad guys. Sure makes as much sense as a god with multiple personalities, wants humans to worship him, angry one minute forgiving the next, asking for peace then killing dozens if not thousands, allowing daughters to "know" their father, giving orders to kill baby boys, and women then giving girl children to the people who back him/it up, what a top bloke

reply to post by SilentKoala

and God is hiding this truth from Adam and Eve because he's afraid "their eyes will be opened."

If God was hiding the truth or didn't WANT them to eat from the tree, why did he put them there in the first place?

reply to post by Evanzsayz


This is what I meant in my post when I said that perhaps the tree is a metaphor for something that is visible and accessible by everyone at any time, however God didn't want them to access it. Hence the death threat. He couldn't do anything to hide the tree, he just made it into something 'untouchable'.

"then there's no morality either! There will be blood in the streets!"

This is a really interesting thing to say as it completely reminds me of something I learnt about when I was younger. Check this out. Kinda the antithesis of religion yet it is caused by religion!

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Day_massacre

By the way, I don't really buy religion but when 'God' refers to himself in plural, as far as I'm aware, it's meant to mean the holy trinity (god the father, son and holy spirit)

genesis is a difficult read really. there are so many questions as you go along. i think it is important to remember that everything in the book was passed down orally through many many years before it was written. point being, there's no telling how everything really happened. the stories could've been butchered through the oral tradition over time. just my two cents. (:

reply to post by SilentKoala


Have you read into anything by the alchemists , I forget the authors name , but one of them wrote a book , I think called something like magnum opus , it was a critical look at genesis and an alchemiacal interpretation of genesis .

An alternative version if you will that shows that our spirituality was being hidden from us and our access to great knowledge by creating the bible .

I will look for it

EDIT: as seamus said , consciousness existed before matter , and as our human bodies became more solid in this physical dimensions we lost our ability ti utilise our chakra;s and our spirituality