Interesting, though I would caution against adding to the text what is not there. Analysing the intricacies of the text is not the same as adding speculation in it. :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Interesting, though I would caution against adding to the text what is not there. Analysing the intricacies of the text is not the same as adding speculation in it. :)
Thanks for answering, but no speculation ... , it is in this post´s text that they walked together :
"The walked and talked with God as a parent-like figure" (I assume the author meant ´they´ rather than ´the´)".
Since they where in the garden of Eden, it can not be speculation that they walked within the premises of the garden of Eden, and since they walked rather than flied, existed, or even had a voice in their heads, I have to assume god had a body able to walk and talk, and also able to make those two feel as if they were walking with their father.
No speculation so far, rather good assumptions. And now how do you define the following thought: if god had a body that walked, talked, and 2 or 3 of them had such a good feeling during those walks, I can not see any other possibility than 3 bodies (2 ´humans´ and 1 body of something else) .
The idea of a all-power-of-the-universe god walking with 2 creations that can not get out of a garden or eat an apple because is forbidden just makes me smile.
Its obvious that the lesser creatures think of their creator as gods or whatever concept bigger than themselves. This monotheistic concept of a GOD I believe is misunderstood, there surely can be lesser gods to which you can talk, walk, and even fuck (yeahhh they surely wouldn't exist since the creation of Time so they would have to procreate or clone themselves :)
Now you made me write a lot, just for not reading closely enough :D
Haha, I didn't mean the walking in the Garden part :P I meant the laboratory and scientist parts. Those are relatively modern ideas and, while attractive, can lead to misconception. It is rather like writing a book about a medieval kingdom and then talking about how they used iPhones.
Nevertheless, I understand what you mean ^_^
Also, saying that Adam and Eve were never allowed to leave the Garden is an assumption. They were not allowed to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, but it never says they couldn't walk outside the Garden. They were there to tend it, not be prisoners to it. The two were banned from the Garden after the Fall, so their entrance was later denied. Their exit never was.
As for lesser gods, those exist in the Bible as well. What are called angels are actually the other gods. They are all called Elohim, God being their creator and the chief above them all. When an angel appears in the Bible, the person who sees them is invariably compelled to fall down to the ground and worship them, at which point the angel tells them to rise and worship only Yahuwah, the creator.
These are actually very interesting details which can be discussed in great detail ^_^
Oh I see. Well I guess the laws of Nature were the same that long ago, and also the existence of DNA in every cell of Adam´s body. So if the word laboratory seems very modern, call the garden as you wish ;p
With regard to their liberty to leave the garden, I have found nothing in the bible about it. I understand they were NOT free, since they probably were property of the god, and so, when they were expelled, they were not free to come back to the garden. However god seems too harsh to them 3 (serpent included) just for consuming the master´s monoatomic gold ... sorry, I mean the apple from the tree of knowledge/life :D
I agree, that the Bible does not say they were free to leave the Garden. It also does not say they were prisoners there. It says they were there to tend it, as gardeners, if you will. A lot of people today have gardeners and most of them are not prisoners of the garden they are tending. So you are really making an argument out of silence.
Also, the idea that the fruit of the tree of good and evil is called gold is nowhere found in Scripture. You are referring to Zachariah Sitchin's work, I am familiar with it. I used to be a fan as well. Until I studied harder and looked at his work with the same sceptical eye with which I looked at a lot of other things.
The Biblical text never says what the fruit of the tree of good and evil was. We know from the text that it had fruit and so did the tree of life. One was allowed and one was forbidden. We also know that every promise the serpent made to the man and the woman was about something they already possessed:
1: You shall not die (immortality) - they did not know death.
2: You will be as God - they were made in the image of God already.
3: Knowing Good and Evil - they had unhindered communication with God and could learn anything if they would simply ask.
This is all the text itself reveals. Why the judgements were what they were, the text does not say. You may think they were harsh, and it may be so. But if their choice brought death into the world, then perhaps the crime is rather serious?
I do not have a reason for many things which happen in life XD
The job as gardeners given by god to those two, may well be a question of maintaining them occupied. You know, doing nothing is the root of evil :) , thus giving tasks and rules may well have been the way to test the human capabilities to work for the master. I believe making an animal intelligent enough to undergo difficult tasks as maintaining a garden ;D and control the inner force to search for freedom is a difficult equilibrium, and hence a lot of monitoring is required. Walking around the garden talking to the humans, may have been a way to control the mental development (or the flow of information about the world) of his creations rather than to have really nice conversations.
The serpent: as far as I have read in the bible, the serpent didnt lie once.
And finally how can anyone blame the 2 humans to have brought death into the world if they were the only 2 humans in the world? or may be was death to the .... horses? cows? goats? rabbits? rain forest?
note: I never liked Zachariah´s work, everything is very convenient, like any religion which has everything answered, and if it isnt, lets make hugeeee assumptions to cover the holes.
@beltashazzar, I am having a good time chating with you about these delicate matters. Thank you!