Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Adam and Eve


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 27 September 2011 - 09:26 AM

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: Lucas Cranach</strong>
Image credit: Lucas Cranach
Larry Gerndt: The story of Adam and Eve, and what happened in the garden of Eden, has some bizarre aspects to it which seem to have been completely overlooked by the mainstream. Virtually everyone to whom I've spoken regarding this story seems to agree on at least one point: it seems like it was a set-up. Could it be that God secretly wanted them to choose to eat from this tree? He plants this special tree in the middle of the garden—on display, as it were—and says to Adam and Eve, do not eat from this tree...this one right here. At this point I like to imagine that God turns to us, the audience, and winks, as if to acknowledge that we all know it will be only a matter of time before their curiosity gets the better of them, and they will succumb, though apparently it became necessary to coax them into it. No problem: exit God stage left, enter the 'serpent', stage right.

Posted Image View: Full Article

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    littleriot

littleriot

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 87 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Northern Ireland

Posted 27 September 2011 - 12:57 PM

Death didn't mean immediate physical death.
Some argue that it was an immediate spiritual death. From that moment Adam disobeyed God there was a spiritual distance between man and God.
But I think the main idea is that in Eden there was no death [at least human] until the fall. Death is unnatural and age began to move toward decay from that moment.
There are 2 quotes to support this:
- In Romans 5: 12 Paul writes "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Paul here shows that Adam's actions reached beyond himself and Eve; his sin caused death for all men.
-In Romans 8, Paul explains "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:21-23).

God isn't lying and the serpent isn't shown to lie out-rightly, he played word games, I think. Tempted- bewitched rather than deceived.
I think that this passage is written as such to show the reader that the fall was the failure of a test rather than God being outwitted. The fact that a tree was delegated forbidden and set aside from other trees shows this. There was nothing bad about the tree, simply the act- the tree is a regular tree. I think the article has a point when they say God intended this, or at least expected it.

Eve didn't sin- her sin wasn't the fall. The key point is Eve was deceived but Adam intentionally disobeyed- and didn't repent- causing the fall. If Adam had said no the fall would not have taken place- Eve was part of the test perhaps. Both humans blamed someone else- Adam blamed Eve and God, Eve blamed the snake. Maybe that was a secondary test. The snake I am unsure about.

I think all the punishments could be said to have lifted by today: With pain meds, women's lib, machinery- the human burden has been lifted, I think. Perhaps that is significant.


#3    Robbie333

Robbie333

    "Seek and you shall find"

  • Member
  • 2,790 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Do not stand at my grave and weep
    I am not there; I do not sleep.

Posted 27 September 2011 - 02:24 PM

View PostUM-Bot, on 27 September 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: Lucas Cranach</strong>
Image credit: Lucas Cranach
Larry Gerndt: The story of Adam and Eve, and what happened in the garden of Eden, has some bizarre aspects to it which seem to have been completely overlooked by the mainstream. Virtually everyone to whom I've spoken regarding this story seems to agree on at least one point: it seems like it was a set-up. Could it be that God secretly wanted them to choose to eat from this tree? He plants this special tree in the middle of the garden—on display, as it were—and says to Adam and Eve, do not eat from this tree...this one right here. At this point I like to imagine that God turns to us, the audience, and winks, as if to acknowledge that we all know it will be only a matter of time before their curiosity gets the better of them, and they will succumb, though apparently it became necessary to coax them into it. No problem: exit God stage left, enter the 'serpent', stage right.

Posted Image View: Full Article

             In will roll the atheist and Christian bashers. I have decided not to get involved in these posts anymore. It seems if you are a believer, such as I am, that you will certainly get beat up in here so...I  wish some of these topics could be dicussed in a civil and live and let live manner. I feel most could learn from some of these discussions. I remember in philosophy class in college, the heated arguments that would arise and my professor used the "problem" as a teaching tool. The biggest question he posed to us is, why do we become so defensive and angry concerning this topic? I thought it was a wonderful tool for his class to help understand the human mind.

Robbie James

#4    Ciss

Ciss

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined:27 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:20 AM

Hi Larry!

I enjoyed your article! It is written in the bible...

Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

Some people will say that "God doesn't lie!"....well they're right, it's not a lie if he says "I'm going to conceal, cover up and hide something from you!" just given you an HONEST, TRUTHFUL heads up...I'm about to tell a lie, see if you can find the lie...  :blink:


#5    sonofman

sonofman

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2011

Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:54 AM

View PostCiss, on 28 September 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

Hi Larry!

I enjoyed your article! It is written in the bible...

Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

Some people will say that "God doesn't lie!"....well they're right, it's not a lie if he says "I'm going to conceal, cover up and hide something from you!" just given you an HONEST, TRUTHFUL heads up...I'm about to tell a lie, see if you can find the lie...  :blink:

What a delightful quote, thank you so much for that gem.  I think it does speak to the riddle.  I really cringe when people accuse me of accusing God to be a liar, I'm only analyzing the story, and it wasn't necessarily a lie He told.


#6    Cryptozological Mascot

Cryptozological Mascot

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, WA

  • “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” –Martin Reese, British Astronomer

Posted 28 September 2011 - 02:47 PM

In interesting take on the alien-hybrid theory... unfortunately, there is much supposition in this article about the nature of God.  I personally am not an authorative figure on His nature, but I'm sure that some theologists would have a lot of fun with this.  The inherant problem is the human tendancy to be predispositioned to this subject before ever reading the entire article.  Some of us are sure that there is a spiritual creator, while others of us are certain that we're a science experiment... Out of everything that I read here though, I must whole heartedly agree with littleriot when she said "Eve didn't sin- her sin wasn't the fall. The key point is Eve was deceived but Adam intentionally disobeyed- and didn't repent- causing the fall. If Adam had said no the fall would not have taken place- Eve was part of the test perhaps. Both humans blamed someone else- Adam blamed Eve and God."

The world is my oyster... and I'm allergic to sea food.
My Background / Credentials

#7    Xanthurion2

Xanthurion2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under There

  • Valar morghulis

Posted 29 September 2011 - 01:59 AM

sounds plausible

SRS

#8    seller2006

seller2006

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

  • Student of the Quran

Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:25 PM

Loll i love how people are arguing about a fabricated story. This version of Adam and eve never occured. Lol Adam = Human and Eve(name was never mentioned) was spoken about as the respected companion of man. Satan was their desires... and the tree was them branching of into sects, factions, etc ,etc. the male of female citizens of the earliest civilizations lived in harmony until their desires started taking over(satan) and this led to further human errors, ignorance, pride, greed ,etc ,etc. We make selfish ,etc. This version of Adam and Eve is merely a distortion of the reality.

Posted Image

Check out some of my raps.. http://www.unexplain...log&blogid=3016

Check out my Concious Hip Hop, http://www.youtube.c...Adealist/videos

#9    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,823 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 30 September 2011 - 05:57 PM

View Postlittleriot, on 27 September 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

Death didn't mean immediate physical death.
Some argue that it was an immediate spiritual death. From that moment Adam disobeyed God there was a spiritual distance between man and God.
But I think the main idea is that in Eden there was no death [at least human] until the fall. Death is unnatural and age began to move toward decay from that moment.
There are 2 quotes to support this:
- In Romans 5: 12 Paul writes "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Paul here shows that Adam's actions reached beyond himself and Eve; his sin caused death for all men.
-In Romans 8, Paul explains "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:21-23).

God isn't lying and the serpent isn't shown to lie out-rightly, he played word games, I think. Tempted- bewitched rather than deceived.
I think that this passage is written as such to show the reader that the fall was the failure of a test rather than God being outwitted. The fact that a tree was delegated forbidden and set aside from other trees shows this. There was nothing bad about the tree, simply the act- the tree is a regular tree. I think the article has a point when they say God intended this, or at least expected it.

Eve didn't sin- her sin wasn't the fall. The key point is Eve was deceived but Adam intentionally disobeyed- and didn't repent- causing the fall. If Adam had said no the fall would not have taken place- Eve was part of the test perhaps. Both humans blamed someone else- Adam blamed Eve and God, Eve blamed the snake. Maybe that was a secondary test. The snake I am unsure about.

I think all the punishments could be said to have lifted by today: With pain meds, women's lib, machinery- the human burden has been lifted, I think. Perhaps that is significant.
r

I disagree with the distance between god and Eve&Adam following the consumption of an forbidden fruit. I personally think that the snake, as Sophia, giving the fruit to Eve was the redemption, The Salvation, from the eternal oppression of a cruel and egotistical, and not at all omniscient, minor god.  

And Paul, whew, don't get me started. The man is a murderer, while your are quoting him as a valid spiritual leader, which he was not! He just had good PR in that day and age. And I will tell you. The Nicean Council was one of the worst events in human history. Wars, murder, genocides, slavery and other horrible things followed the rise of Christianity.

To be completely honest, I hate the three Woman-hating religions that arose in history at nearly the same time. Some rising a bit earlier than the others. But still woman-hating, all of them.

The real Fall happened when Sophia tried to create something without the plemorial backing. That was when the Pearl, that inner glow of godhood that we all possess, was lost in the baser elements of creation. Adam and Eve, their eating of the apple, shows that they can personally redeem themselves, by their own actions, as their own personal saviors, with the goal of reaching what was lost in Sophia's regretable faulty creation, redeeeming the lost experience of reaching the everlasting thing that simply cannot be named, cannot be described, but can only be experienced.

Sophia Fell. Sophia found the lost tool to redemption. She gave it to Adam and Eve, because their ghastly god didn't have it and was jealous of it. Adam and Eve were their own Saviors. As we can be today.

Jesus never said he was the savior. He taught we each had the capacity to have direct access to the plemora ourselves without mediators, and ministers and manipulative men and mechanisms of false faiths.

I am not even sure there was ever a concept of needing to be "saved" in the teachings of Jesus. Can someone find a source outside the perverted Christian bible that might indicated that he did?

As all things are, the reality is on the inside of each of us. The myth is a teaching tool. Sophia is the that first emanation of ... the ....  yet to be understood completely. Maybe Sophia is the energy behind the expansion of The Big Bang. Maybe Sophia is the poorly understood energy that is 95% of this Universe. Maybe. But I will GNOW in some manner at some point in the vast continuum of yet unknown physics.

Edited by regeneratia, 30 September 2011 - 06:21 PM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#10    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,542 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 01 October 2011 - 06:32 AM

View PostUM-Bot, on 27 September 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: Lucas Cranach</strong>
Image credit: Lucas Cranach
Larry Gerndt: The story of Adam and Eve, and what happened in the garden of Eden, has some bizarre aspects to it which seem to have been completely overlooked by the mainstream. Virtually everyone to whom I've spoken regarding this story seems to agree on at least one point: it seems like it was a set-up. Could it be that God secretly wanted them to choose to eat from this tree? He plants this special tree in the middle of the garden—on display, as it were—and says to Adam and Eve, do not eat from this tree...this one right here. At this point I like to imagine that God turns to us, the audience, and winks, as if to acknowledge that we all know it will be only a matter of time before their curiosity gets the better of them, and they will succumb, though apparently it became necessary to coax them into it. No problem: exit God stage left, enter the 'serpent', stage right.

Posted Image View: Full Article

An interesting ideology. I think when a story gets told over the years things get added/subtracted to the original one. Example: When one hears gossip about someone and as the gossip gets passed on to person to person, the story get more extreme. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, though simular in beliefs...but yet different.

It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve. But to much of it can make you arrogant & egotistical.

#11    Ciss

Ciss

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined:27 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 October 2011 - 01:12 AM

View Postsonofman, on 28 September 2011 - 03:54 AM, said:

What a delightful quote, thank you so much for that gem.  I think it does speak to the riddle.  I really cringe when people accuse me of accusing God to be a liar, I'm only analyzing the story, and it wasn't necessarily a lie He told.

Hi!

I beg the differ, it was to a lie!  :yes:  Don't even try to candy coat it!  :lol:

2 Th. 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: <plainly says lie... :P

And what would be the riddle? that the whole book is a "straw dog"...no riddle there, great delusion YES, but no riddle...

Dangerous straw dog too! Look at how many are out killing in the name of that idea... :blink: It's a literary form of the concept of creating maddness and polluted idea before the actual BETTER idea, but what makes it dangerous is most will insist on the polluted idea/understanding and want to keep it...no riddle, just delusional maddness. It is meant to exercise your senses in the sense of offending you, if you find yourself trying to make yourself comply with what it teaches, then there is a problem and you have fallen into a trap...untrap yourself, flip and reverse your understanding..example:

When you first start to learn about god and the bible...you are taught to fear god <the perceived greater than self and world and so forth..

So first step into knowledge,

Pro. 1:7  The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.


This first step is enough to offend and scare most away, but sad they run with the fear left hiding in them..thus,

Pro. 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Now, if you stayed with it past that point, you should be believing some really crazy shizz out of fear  :yes:

and your fear will be making you compliance to accept and tolerate all the crazy ideas, thus building more crazy beliefs.. :yes:  

But...it is hoped that at some point you will break under making yourself comply and live by that craziness and that the design of the book will kick in and have you slowly but surely overcoming your fear of the greater, breaking you to the point that you confront the greater/GOD

Psa. 111:10
The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.

The first step into wisdom...is it that you should fear the greater?...or is it that you should recognize that you do fear the greater? CLUE: is to recognize that you have a fear of the greater, next step...overcome it! or just stay with the polluted idea... :devil:


#12    sonofman

sonofman

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2011

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:51 AM

View PostCiss, on 06 October 2011 - 01:12 AM, said:

Hi!

I beg the differ, it was to a lie!  :yes:  Don't even try to candy coat it!  :lol:

2 Th. 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: <plainly says lie... :P

And what would be the riddle? that the whole book is a "straw dog"...no riddle there, great delusion YES, but no riddle...

Dangerous straw dog too! Look at how many are out killing in the name of that idea... :blink: It's a literary form of the concept of creating maddness and polluted idea before the actual BETTER idea, but what makes it dangerous is most will insist on the polluted idea/understanding and want to keep it...no riddle, just delusional maddness. It is meant to exercise your senses in the sense of offending you, if you find yourself trying to make yourself comply with what it teaches, then there is a problem and you have fallen into a trap...untrap yourself, flip and reverse your understanding..example:

When you first start to learn about god and the bible...you are taught to fear god <the perceived greater than self and world and so forth..

So first step into knowledge,

Pro. 1:7  The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.


This first step is enough to offend and scare most away, but sad they run with the fear left hiding in them..thus,

Pro. 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Now, if you stayed with it past that point, you should be believing some really crazy shizz out of fear  :yes:

and your fear will be making you compliance to accept and tolerate all the crazy ideas, thus building more crazy beliefs.. :yes:  

But...it is hoped that at some point you will break under making yourself comply and live by that craziness and that the design of the book will kick in and have you slowly but surely overcoming your fear of the greater, breaking you to the point that you confront the greater/GOD

Psa. 111:10
The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.

The first step into wisdom...is it that you should fear the greater?...or is it that you should recognize that you do fear the greater? CLUE: is to recognize that you have a fear of the greater, next step...overcome it! or just stay with the polluted idea... :devil:

Hi Ciss, you need to look up the 'archaic' definition of "fear" because the archaic definition is the only definition that the translators of the King James bible knew.  And that definition for "fear" is:   regard (God) with reverence and awe.

Another great example I have discovered of how the archaic definition of a word is quite different than the modern definition is for the word "meek", as in "the meek shall inherit the earth".  The archaic definition of meek is:  "enduring injury with patience, and without resentment".  Surprise.  I might add that for me, this implies that we're not promised an easy time of it here, for the sake of our education, but we are asked to endure.  A better world awaits us all.

But still you make a good point because you're not the only one who has misinterpreted that phrase "fear the Lord", so many people do think we're supposed to fear Him.  Personally, I think the intended message is more like this:  if a young child has a good father that loves him, the child will naturally revere the father simply because he knows that his father knows a LOT more about the world, can do a LOT more things in it than he can, and the child accepts his child status.  And what model does the New Testament give us for understanding our relationship with God?  Clearly the model of parent/child.  He's the parent, we're the children.

The only trouble is, God is such a recluse.  We know next to nothing about Him.  But Jesus reflected His spirit, so that's what we have.  It's still not much if you ask me, because it's hard to feel the love of someone who's not there.  But as we grow older, many of us begin to feel his presence, we question, and he seems to be there, though always not as much as a real human Father.  But Jesus did promise this:  

Quote

Rev: 3-20: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
  This kind of promise becomes important to those who suffer a lot in this world, which is most of us, and especially as we grow older.


#13    Ciss

Ciss

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined:27 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 October 2011 - 03:55 AM

Quote

Hi Ciss, you need to look up the 'archaic' definition of "fear" because the archaic definition is the only definition that the translators of the King James bible knew. And that definition for "fear" is: regard (God) with reverence and awe.


Fear...yir'ah

fear, terror, fearing, awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear), fear (of God), respect, reverence, piety

Which father are you speaking about? there are two mentioned...


#14    Ciss

Ciss

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined:27 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:04 AM

sonofman,

You have to show someone how it is that they can overcome their terror of a God that is built and believed to be a father that doesn't have to follow his own moral codes and standards (laws)...

Why would anyone revere a father that does not practise what he preaches? When Moses lead all those people out into the desert and had them agree to that moral code of shall not murder, steal, envy, and so forth...why did God have them break everyone of those laws? They were lead by envy of a promise that the land over there is flowing with milk and honey...all you have to do is go kill and run those people out, steal their homes take their land over, you can even rape their wives and make slaves of them if you want too...well in the story..they wanted to! Cause it says they did it! Now either there is something wrong with god in this teaching or there is something wrong with the characters of the people in this story...which is it?


#15    sonofman

sonofman

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2011

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:47 AM

View PostCiss, on 06 October 2011 - 05:04 AM, said:

sonofman,

You have to show someone how it is that they can overcome their terror of a God that is built and believed to be a father that doesn't have to follow his own moral codes and standards (laws)...

Why would anyone revere a father that does not practise what he preaches? When Moses lead all those people out into the desert and had them agree to that moral code of shall not murder, steal, envy, and so forth...why did God have them break everyone of those laws? They were lead by envy of a promise that the land over there is flowing with milk and honey...all you have to do is go kill and run those people out, steal their homes take their land over, you can even rape their wives and make slaves of them if you want too...well in the story..they wanted to! Cause it says they did it! Now either there is something wrong with god in this teaching or there is something wrong with the characters of the people in this story...which is it?

Cis, I'm well aware that the "God" of the Old Testament did all these things you mention and more.  And I'm not at all convinced he was God the Creator.  The details in Exodus make it very clear that technology was being used, just as the increasingly popular "Ancient Aliens" theory states.  And I'm not at all convinced that the Father of Jesus was this being.   Whoever he was, though, he might have had what he considered to be good reason to do all that "cleaning house" if you will, given the history of this planet.  I'm referring to the absolute mess that was created by the "sons of God" who came down here before the flood and, through genetic engineering, created every mix of human and animal imaginable, and giants also, to the point where the flood became necessary to reset and start over.  But we're also told that even after the flood, more meddling was going on:  as I'm sure you know, there were many other very real "gods", not wooden idols as most preachers would have you believe, but real, advanced beings with great power.  This may have been a rather desperate move by the "Most High", i.e. the most powerful, Jehova, to try to fix the world.  A little known fact is that his plan was to use Abraham to father a special breed of people who were supposed to become a "nation of priests" that would draw all mankind to God.  Having placed them in Egypt to multiply, once they were large in number, he led them into the promised land, and destroyed cities that, perhaps, were just to corrupt to allow to go on.  And as barbaric as this may seem to us, his intentions were at least good.  I'll leave it at that, each man should judge for himself.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users