Hawkingfan

It sure does! I am quoting the NIV version of the bible. If you have a version that supports your weak argument, then post it. Read the scripture before answering, please.

Here is exactly what my bible says--1 Timothy 2:14: "For Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceivedand became a sinner."

Oh, I see. So a woman is better at sinning than a man, eh? Maybe you didn't understand what I said before, but it is NOT "possible" Adam new the consequences, he definitely did. If you'd have read the bible, you would see that Adam was told directly not to do it and what would happen if he did. Yet, you and the bible unfairly blame Eve more than Adam.

They did NOT know right from wrong before eating the fruit because it was The Knowledge of Good and Evil. So therefore, they could not have known it was wrong to eat the fruit and disobey God. Have you even read the bible?

You're guessing. But that extremely selfish behavior you just described fits God's sick mind to a T. Funny how he would send someone to an eternity of hell for not having a "true relationship". He sure can't take his feelings getting hurt! Any rational person would just get over it. He really likes to get what HE desires, or else! What an immature bastard.

Answerer

Well guys, I thought the race responsible for bibical myths was the Sumerians whose cultivation was argued to have started at the time of 5000 B.C.

Hawkingfan

Hey, thanks capnkirk and Answerer!

I once heard that the Noah myth was Sumerian in origin but didn't realize other myths were too. Thanks!

Hawkingfan

If I could go off topic for just a moment. I forgot to mention that the above guess at God's objectives contradicts his claim of being omnipotent and omniscient. If god has always been, always is, and always will be, has no past, present, or future (but is all in one), is all powerful, and therefore knew exactly what would happen before he created everything--then he would not be able to partake in an "unforced" relationship and there would be no "option" of rejecting god. It would already be determined what the outcome would be before anything happens, thus taking away any "options" for us and in effect a "true" relationship with god. Neither one is possible. This debate of freewill you can find in another thread. I just wanted to mention it for a moment.

happyboy

yes, i must agree: we make God nervous. we gained knowledge previously only he had, so he booted us out of paradise before we could become a threat. we started to do things he disagreed with, so he over-reacted and drowned us all (with the sole exception of the dubiously sanctified noah and his brood). THEN we came close to storming the heavens, so once again God goes overboard and muddles up our ability to speak to one another.

yup, seems to me we make God VERY uneasy and a little afraid.

happyboy

Volker.Doormann

I agree, that elements of the stories in the Genesis have roots in the land of sumer before 2200 B.C.E. The flood story of Noah is also taken from Gilgamesh. The Biography of Moses is taken from Sargon of Akkad and there are many many more of such hints. I think that all that scriptures have no meaning, but they mirror the eternal symbols and principles of the human being in general which are available to each person ever in the present, if one is able and aware to recognize these principles in his own inner self.

These principles has been p.e. symbolized in the Indian Vedas, as three principles called Brahm, Vishnu and Shiva, and all of them are appear as well in man and woman as you and me. The creator, the keeper and the destroyer symbolize the three stages of the physical live cycle for man and woman. If one looks, what religions have all claimed until today from this simple thruth, you can find a connection all over the religions.

With the end of sumerian culture at ~ 2200 B.C.E. in Mesopotamia a different kind of culture has taken place. Naming Hammurabi, we can study his law code, which is filed in the Louvre in Paris, France, and can find the known similar laws, which are also claimed as the Laws of Moses in the hebrew bible doormann.org/hammur.htm or the biography of Sargon of Akkad doormann.org/sargon01.htm which is taken for Moses. But if one looks at the Law of Manu, the Manu_smriti doormann.org/manuslaw.txt from the ancient India together with the principles of the vedas, it shows, that the major part in the symbols in Genesis 2 has its roots in the vedas.

ABram and his wife Sara comes (eastward from Jordan) from Brahm and his wife Sara_svati. Eve, german=Eva, in Hebrew Chavvah = { khav-vaw } comes from Shiva (SCHiWAH) The live giver , and the four rivers in the Genesis are also inherent of the vedic Shiva doormann.org/thunder0.htm (German).

I think, only a few people until no one from the abrahamitic religions are aware about this roots. With the change in understanding already in India since Manu 4000 years ago, who has changed the subject of the woman from shielding her (as woman) from mans attacks, into suppress her freedom as woman, this misunderstanding, which is recognized in the Manusmriti - p.e. in Cap. IX – 3 "Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence." or in Cap. V. 148. "In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent." - has flooded also the scriptures in the abrahamitic religions until today, as we can see by the Islamic laws not only in Nigeria, where a woman shell be stoned to death, because she is a mother without a husband.

The origin meaning of all that scriptures, to respect the elements of creating (human) life, including the understanding of knowledge to each (human) one, has lost, because some rulers have taken the social power to suppress the spiritual freedom of other people only for their own state of power. We all know that from the history of the religions until today.

Because of the modifications of Characters of men which can occur in phase with the harmonics of the planets surrounding, people have not only checked, that the moon phase correlates with menstruation. The individual characters of the bodies has wrongly taken as gods or goddess, but they are only simple principles of the human character supplied with birth, as storms and rain change with blue skies and sun on different days.

The orign symbols of creating live from the Genesis, which needs a tree of live and a (hebrew) gan eden (hebrew) which is a garden of pleasure, which is the female womb, that is placed inmidst in the garden of pleasure and has four phases with increasing and decreasing elements in that the garden of pleasure is watered (s. hebrew meaning of the names of the four rivers).

Very simple symbols.

Same as the meaning of the hindu word: Omm mani padme hum, which means: Oh you juwel in the lotos - where the juwel is the tree of life and the lotus is the garden of pleasure equal to the womans womb.

Parts of this symbols where taken also to the ancient arabia before Muhammed and because he has had no knowledge of the vedas, the symbols from the vedas including the meaning of the conjunction of Moon and Venus before sunrise is taken still until now as a symbol of Islam. And like the people in Tibet surround Mount Kailash the people in Mecca surround the Kaaba for the same reason, to be washed from an unclean soul.

The idea to clean symbolically the soul from dirt has also its roots in the Manusmriti: II. 60:

„Let him first sip water thrice; next twice wipe his mouth; and, lastly, touch with water the cavities (of the head), (the seat of) the soul and the head."

Until now these cult is practicized in xianity mostly unknown about its hinduistic roots as nothing else as a symbol to scrutinize its meaning, which paradoxically is the dismissal from the mad social/religion bonding to get free as a soul. That there are no other real things, than the own inner human spirituality, that each men is able to find in his own self, have religions and religious people never understood, because they never have looked for that. They always have claimed social obedience as it is normal in social clans and packs all over the world.

Volker

capnkirk

Volker,

I hear a lot of Joseph Campbell's poignant conclusions in the linkages you present. Are you familiar with his work? Some of his best-known works are The Power of Myth and Transformations of Myth Through Time. At the heart of both these works is the realization that the mythologies of all the world's societies are linked both in symbology and in man's common longings and needs to find order in chaos. (The fatal flaw in that need has always been that too many people sought codification of that order primarily as a means to gain control over it...and their neighbors.)

His was his insight that finally released me from my last theist entanglements and allowed me to see all organized religions in the same objective light.

capnkirk

If Merlin Stone is correct, the character assassination of "woman" via the A&E myth was intentional, but was politically motivated, not spiritually motivated (see my earlier posting). If correct, the reinvention of the myth becomes nothing more than a tragic abuse of religious authority with very long coattails.

Volker's posting illustrates that as the whole of the Indian subcontinent and as far west as Egypt was transformed into a patriarchial, patrilineal society, local myths were similarly transformed to the same purpose. In order to speed the conquest and consolidate their power, patriachs used every tool at their disposal...the use of religion to mask political motives and goals was not limited to the 12 tribes.

The key is in understanding that the underpinning motive was political, not religious. That religion was used as a tool to this end is, however, what has made the effects of that political coup so long-lived. (This is in no way to be considered an apology for religion. Rather consider it just another example of how the power that resides in both religion and the state is regularly co-opted and abused for the sake of power alone.)

capnkirk

The significance of that origin though, does not become fully apparent until you also recognize the Sumerian roots of Semitic stock. That recognition erases all possibility of divine inspiration of the Genesis versions of the myths because recognizable, but clearly different versions of those myths existed in the very homeland of the ancestors of the Semites hundreds of years before they were incorporated into Old Testament scripture as being "direct from God".

vtran31

Here is exactly what my bible says--1 Timothy 2:14: "For Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceivedand became a sinner."

yes it says that. so adam was not decieved. so he knew full well what would happen if he ate it

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
its possibleAdam knew full well the consequences but was incompetant enough to do what Eve told him.[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh, I see. So a woman is better at sinning than a man, eh?

no. just different sins

Maybe you didn't understand what I said before, but it is NOT "possible" Adam new the consequences, he definitely did. If you'd have read the bible, you would see that Adam was told directly not to do it and what would happen if he did. Yet, you and the bible unfairly blame Eve more than Adam.

no. God adequately blamed BOTH. The blame is not shifted to Eve. ADAM did that and not God. it is not portrayed in that manner. If Adam knew the consequences fully, did you just say he did know the consequences fully, he was not decieved then. And do you know of any bible commentators who agree with you, either Christian or Hebrew?