Bobzammel

I also don't know what you mean by God's "sons" mating with human women (still kind of sounds sexist to me).
-----------------
Shortly after the "Cain and Abel" story and the Generations after, there is a mention of God's sons mating with women. Some Christians think these are in fact Adam's Grandchildren, but there is no support for this. Also "Sons of God" are referred to in Job as well. So there appeared to be some divine/human contact. According to Genesis this union produces some "men of reknown" and some Giants as well.


I'm not sure what you mean by God making comprimises, either, especially since in Genesis God destroyed ALL of man (who obviously were not trying to reach or be like God as you have said) by the flood--not much of a compromise there.
-------------------------

Let's not forget Noah. Anyway in some biblical tradition it's stated that this mating between angel and human-and the offspring-is the main reason God chooses to exterminate mankind. He doesn't want these mixed marriages and mixed offspring going around( There is a slight feeling of "racial purity" throughout the OT-God doesn't like the Jews marrying foreigners), so he decides to destroy them with a flood. This is found in the Book of Enoch as well, in which God takes Enoch to heaven and states how mad he is that his Angels are messing with the Earth ladies and decides some centuries later to destroy it all.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm wording it correctly. Some of the fairly unbiased Annotated bibles, such as the NEW OXFORD, state this pattern in the pre-Patriarchs element of Genesis.

Hawkingfan

I'm still not sure how what you have said so far relates to my original post, but these "sons" of God you mention seem to bring in a whole new set of problems, namely "Why?" The OT should be more clear on this. As far as giants, there is no archeological evidence to suggest giants have ever been on this earth.

Right, I meant to say--"(except Noah and his family)" but Noah did not represent "man", in fact, "man" was wicked and not trying to be like god.

That other racial stuff you mentioned I have never heard before, but find it interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if religious fanatics believed it since it is perfectly in line with the asshole-like behavior that god has in the OT.

Hex

Well, there's also no archaeological evidence for a world-wide flood, or for a garden that was supposed to be guarded by angels with flaming swords, and yet they beleive in those too ...

Mageth

As far as giants, there is no archeological evidence to suggest giants have ever been on this earth.


Well, there is gigantopithecus.

Well, there's also no archaeological evidence for a world-wide flood, or for a garden that was supposed to be guarded by angels with flaming swords, and yet they beleive in those too

Don't you know, the garden was destroyed by the flood, and as far as the flood, how else did marine fossils get on top of the Himalayas?

Hawkingfan

Right. Thanks. I meant humans though.

Bobzammel

I mean to state that the opening of Genesis does not really state there is an "Original sin". That's what the New Testament does.

The OT passage regarding sons of God and Giants is elaborated on in the Book Of Enoch, an apocryphal book that neither the Jews or the Church thought was really genuine. You can find it online. Interestingly it shows early references to hell, Satan etc.--stuff later prominent in the NT. It also shows a lot of Zoroastarian influence.

Amos

Sorry to trouble you so much Hawkingfan and please consider this a reply for my own benefit (I need the practice).

You fail to recognize that we look with our eyes and see with our mind. When they ate from the Tree of Knowledge they consumed from the conscious mind and therefore they remembered and that is how their eyes were opened. Conscious memory is needed to realize that they were no longer were naked to wit and so the fig leaves imply the formation of the persona (if Freud invented our ego). This persona was called Adam and that is how Adam was created by the fall of man-- who himself was created in Gen.1 and was formed in Gen.2. Notice that Adam does not get formed to have a corporeal existence of being and is therefore an illusion (painted outside the human skull in Michelangelo's painting wherein the human skull is the backdrop of the painting that excludes Adam).

I'll get to the sexist part later.

Correct.

Wrong. This implies that "man" was flesh and blood.

Please don't be so offended by the stuff I write and I do not have to make any deals with you, nor must I be persuaded by what many Christians believe or not believe.

I am surprised to hear that I am the only one who knows that a self awareness is needed to feel shame. This self awareness was adressed with the name Adam and therefore was Gen.3:7 the first time that the word Adam was effectively used to affirm the creation of the persona.

Again, I am not interesting in persuading you.

Adam was the product of the fall and could have nothing to do with it. The serpent was the cause and she (sic) was the void that creates a vacuum in the conscious mind. She did it then, does it now and always will do that. Once she had this first bit of data she gave it to . . . (guess who?) Adam!

Here they are for good measure.

One other point was that [you] do not see why God could blame Adam and Eve for sinning by disobeying him whenever they wouldn't be able to discern right from wrong BEFORE eating the fruit.

I see no blame but just a good and evil consequence. Adam took the serpent as his wife and called her Eve. After this they were not allowed to eat from the Tree of Life and to prevent this the Lord placed man and woman (here called the fiery revolving sword and the cherub) to guard the tree of Life-- and this still is true today in our life.

The other point was that it also seems a slap in the face for God to put a guard around the Tree of Eternal life whenever he could have done the same for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (before they obeyed the serpent). It seems like he wanted them to fail.

The guard was placed after the fall of man and so until the fall no guard was needed. Before the fall man and woman were happy in the Tree of Life and had no need for the Tree of Knowledge because they were naked to wit. The point made here was that woman saw that the Tree of Knowledge was good for gaining food, wisdom and beauty. So instead of flogging yourself take it as a compliment that the woman was the cause for all the beauty, knowledge and understanding that we enjoy today. Yes please, don't be afraid of my nonsense.

Answerer

Well, don't you know as well that Himalayas(past seabed) is a geographical result of the collision between the two plates that contain the sub-continent India and the main continent of Asia respectively.

Hawkingfan

"Seeing" with your mind is a connotation of the word "mind" that you are pulling out of your ass. It is unreasonable to make such a connotation, and something that a good debater shouldn't do. You seem to be pretty obsessed with doing that.

Well, Earth to Amos--you are! I have self awareness but am ashamed of NOTHING.

I'm saying that the guard should have been placed before the fall because it should have been prevented.

I'm not afraid of your convoluted mind, Amos. More like bored.

Isn't spurly around?

thebeast...?

Amos

Of course with the only difference that some people look but see nothing while others can see with their eyes closed (on the seventh day of creation).

No integrity?

No because the fall was good and was created in Gen.1 with the juxtaposition of heaven opposite earth and was formed in Gen 2. with the division of the river that made heaven and earth possible.

There is no need for fear because my words are just words.