Exposing the False Doctrine of Original Sin

[whacky888]

The creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are very interesting. They are also very, very important in solving the mystery of all mysteries. The Bible is a complex book. It is first and foremost a collection of stories penned by many different authors. The authors were human beings, specifically men. This is not to say that our Creator did not influence the writers in order to have some Truth inserted in this book, but, to say that the Bible was written by "the finger of God" is ludicrous. Let us look first at the event that Christians/Jews say is the single cause of man's fall from grace, Original Sin.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The LORD God made the trees grow. Including the "forbidden" tree.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt "SURELY DIE".

Not exactly the Truth.

Gen 3:1-6 Now the serpent was more subtil than ANY beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, LEST ye die". And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God (capitalized) doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (not capitalized), knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one WISE, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

LORD God did not make the serpent. He was more subtle than "any" of the beasts of the field that he made. Not "any other of the beasts", rather all of them.

God tells Eve not to eat or touch it, "LEST" she die. Lest means "for fear that". God said don't eat or touch it, because I am afraid that you might die. He did not "guarantee" she would die, as in "surely" she would. And, why would God not want the couple to know the difference between good and evil? So, they could determine or distinguish what was good from bad?....because that is not what the tree represented. It was a "knowledge tree", which would provide the knowledge that would make one "wise", and evidently the LORD God did not want the couple to become "wise". Why not? The reason will surprise many, and I will address this in another post dealing with the prophetic significance of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.

So, she is "beguiled" by the serpent, who, contrary to popular belief, did not actually "lie" to her. He told her the Truth. She eats, and he eats, and all hell breaks loose. So the LORD God dishes out the punishment to Eve and the serpent, which indicates something that goes completely unnoticed by all these “Lambs of God” who think that they actually can properly interpret the “scrolls”.

Christians and Jews are taught that the “serpent” was a literal snake, and the LORD God punished the snake by removing his legs, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust! So, Eve was a victim of a con-job from none other than a talking snake with legs! But, before the LORD God pulls the legs out from under the serpent, he tells him that he is now “cursed more than all CATTLE, and more than EVERY BEAST OF THE FIELD”.

So, what the LORD God is saying is interesting. He evidently “cursed” all cattle, and every beast of the field before the forbidden tree incident. He cursed the serpent MORE than he had already “cursed all cattle and beasts of the field”! You simply cannot curse something “more” than something else, unless that something else had already been cursed! You cannot ascribe a greater curse, unless you have another curse to use as an example of comparison. The LORD God compared the curse of the serpent to the curse placed on the cattle and beasts of the field.

Two things science has proven concerning “serpents”. No evidence has been uncovered that even suggests the possibility of snakes ever having legs. Not even evolutionists claim the notion that snakes ever walked with legs, and losing them through the process of evolution. There is no fossil records which indicate that snakes suddenly became “legless” 6000 years ago. Another thing we know about “serpents” is their diet. Snakes eat small mammals, particularly rodents. Snakes do not eat “dust”. Here is a challenge to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world. Find me one “walking, talking, dust-eating” snake, and I will concede to you that the Bible is the “literal” Word of God. Actually, let this challenge go out to all fundamentalists who hold to the notion that the Bible can be interpreted “literally”, by showing me the evidence of such a creature. You can’t. So, get over yourselves. You are making both yourself and God look silly.

The serpent was not a literal snake, period. And, if you would really know what happened in the garden, you would realize that the serpent was the ONE entity in the whole garden debacle who actually told the Truth! Certainly, an “all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing” omnipresent God would have heard the conversation, and stepped in to stop the so-called “con-job”. But, the LORD God never saw, heard, or knew about it evidently, unless he was in on the conspiracy. Original Sin could have been thwarted from the start if the LORD God wanted to stop it, right? He can’t be deaf, dumb and blind, can he? He did nothing to prevent it, so that makes him at minimum guilty of something. He stood back and allowed the entire “fall of man” to happen without lifting a finger to stop it. He is guilty of far more than that as we will see. He punishes everyone severely for something he could have stopped. The serpent supposedly tricked the woman, but, as we see, he was spared the “death penalty”.

Christians and Jews are taught that the LORD God punished Eve by making it painful during childbirth. The LORD God punished her with Labor pains! Evidently, the LORD God had never pooped out a bowling ball! He would have then known that natural law states that when something the size of a bowling ball comes out of an opening the size of a vagina, uh…..it’s gonna hurt! This is of course, not what the verse means, but Christians are telling us that God’s “literal” Word tells us that the LORD God was hard of hearing, seeing, and evidently has an I.Q somewhere in the range of George Bush.

The LORD God also punished her by telling her that “her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her”. Who was her “desire” supposed to for, and who was supposed to “rule over her”? For the LORD God to tell Eve that as her “punishment”, her desire would (now) be for her husband, and he would (now) rule over her. We have to assume that this was not supposed to be the case originally. Some different arrangement had to have existed for the LORD God to make this declaration of retribution. He is basically “changing” the situation by making Eve (now) subservient to her husband, and (now) her desire would be for him.

We are given some further evidence in Gen 2:23. After putting the man in a deep sleep, and performing “rib surgery”, the LORD God then takes the rib somewhere to make a woman, and brings her back to the man. We are not told how He did this “magic trick”, but, good magicians do not reveal their secrets, and the Bible is chalk-full of fantastic prestidigitators. Gen 2:23 is the dialogue from the man after the LORD God brings him the woman. It is translated in a variety of ways depending on the source, but, it stresses something interesting, so I will paraphrase. The man says, and apparently he is quite proud of the fact that “finally! Or, at last! This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, and I will call her woman, because she was taken out of man”! The key words are “now”, “finally”, or “at last”, meaning whatever existed as the arrangement or process prior to the “rib trick” was different. The LORD God changed it, and apparently it was much to the man’s liking, because the man was pretty pumped about the new arrangement. I will address the creation stories in detail in another chronicle, but, for now I will stick to the “origin” of original sin.

The LORD God also tells the woman, and the serpent that He would put “enmity between Eve and the serpent, and between her seed and his seed”. And, “she would bruise his head, and he would bruise her heel”. Again, the LORD God declares that he is going to “put enmity” between her and the serpent. Now, “enmity” is a word to describe an intense, and deep-seated hatred. It is better described as an extremely “bitter” hatred. Mortal enemy type hate. And, the LORD God placed this intense hatred between her seed (offspring), and the seed (offspring) of the serpent. So, the woman was going to “bruise the serpents head, and he was going to bruise her heel”. This is pure prophesy, and I will deal with this specifically in another chronicle.

But, again we notice that Eve does not receive the “death penalty”, which is ironic, since she was the cause of all hell breaking loose on earth. According to the standard Christian doctrine of Original Sin, the one who should have “surely died” was Eve, after all, it was all her fault, right? If it were True, it would be the world’s first and most obvious case of entrapment. I’ll explain how, but first, let’s examine the man’s punishment.

When the LORD God gets to the man, he really sticks it to him. He was punished for “listening to the woman”, and the LORD God gives him the death penalty! Now, if I were a lawyer, I would argue that the woman did not say a word to the man. The evidence is clear, and indisputable. The Bible says, and I quote, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat“. According to the evidence, it looks like she ate, and gave it to her husband, and he then ate. No words were exchanged. She did not ask him to eat, nor did she suggest to him to eat. She simply handed it to him, and he ate willingly. He chose to eat it, she did not force it down his throat, nor did she have to “talk him into it”. There is no evidence that she spoke at all. And, what is the reason the LORD God gives for punishing the man?

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

What was Adam’s “sin”? The LORD God says that he was being punished because he “hearkened to the VOICE of thy wife”. How? She handed it to him, and he ate. No conversation is recorded. I mean, if the LORD God would have said, “because she handed it to you, and you ate it, knowing that I told you not to,…….” But, the LORD God specifically mentions that Adam “hearkened unto her VOICE” The word “hearken” means “to listen attentively”, or “to give heed”. If the reason the LORD God gives for putting the hammer down on Adam was for “listening attentively, and heeding the VOICE of his wife”, I would certainly think we are entitled to know exactly what she said, since Eve is officially blamed for the act that has plagued humanity for 6000 years!

The evidence shows that Adam was not “talked into” eating anything, and he clearly did not “hearken unto her voice”. How would the LORD God know that Eve even spoke to the man? He couldn’t hear so well when Eve and the serpent actually had a conversation, but, now he charges Adam for heeding words that were never spoken.

The LORD God the proceeds to punish the man. First, he “curses” the ground because of Adam. He curses Adam with a dose of depression, as he will then eat of the ground “in sorrow”. He apparently will be eating the “herb of the field”, which included thorns and thistles. He will eat bread “by the sweat of his brow all the days of his life”, and then return to “dust”. Then, evidently he becomes “snake food”, as the serpent is now a “dust-eater”! Adam was told that if he ate of the forbidden tree, he would “surely die in the day that he ate of it”. And, he did. Just not literally “in the same 24 hour day”. Now, the real problem with the story unfolds in a major way.

Gen 3:22-24 presents some Truth that Christians/Jews do not seem to see.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

What? You mean that all the LORD God had to do was to allow the man access to the Tree of Life, and what?.....He would have "surely lived"! So, the LORD God boots the man from the garden, and places the "cherubim and the rotating flaming sword" to keep the man from being able to even come near that Tree. A tree that would have kept him from "surely dying".

LORD God did not want the man to become like "them". Who exactly is the "us"? According to the serpent, the "us" were "gods". And, so far the serpent has not lied.So, the LORD God did not want the man to become "as one of us (gods)". Somebody forgot to tell the LORD God that he was "the only God there is, and besides me there is no other". Actually, the verses say "beside", but, what difference can one little letter make? PLENTY. More on that later.

In reality, what the LORD God should have told the man was, "don't eat from that tree, for in the day you eat of it, I will SURELY SEE TO IT THAT YOU DIE"!

Let us now examine exactly what "sins" were committed in the garden.

Eve - Not much. She was never actually "commanded" her not to eat from the tree. God told her basically not to eat or even touch the tree, because God feared that if she did, she would die. She did tell a little white lie when she said that the serpent "beguiled" her. The serpent never actually "tricked" her, he kind of just talked her into it. She was punished for listening to a talking snake.

The Serpent - As far a sins go, the serpent committed zero. He did not lie to the woman, he just told her the facts. Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut, but, he did nothing that could be considered sinful. The last time I checked, telling the Truth was not a sin. What did he tell her?
1. He told her that she would not "surely die". She did not die, contrary to false teaching.
2. He told her that by eating of the tree, they would become "as gods knowing good and evil". Not a lie according to the LORD God, whose whole reasoning for booting the man was the fact that he (and she) had "become as one of them, (gods) knowing good and evil".

So, the serpent had his legs chopped off, and given a steady diet of dust (or dead men) for what? Telling the Truth. He did not "tempt" her nearly as much as the LORD God did by "causing this tree to grow" in the first place.

Adam - He did disobey a direct order. He should have listened, but, he did not deserve the "death penalty", did he? He ate willingly, he was not "talked into it" by Eve, according to the evidence. He gets punished for what? Listening to his wife, who, according to the evidence, did not say a word to him, she simply handed it to him, and he did eat. She should have spoke up and said, "whoah there LG, I did not say squat to him"! Adam also did not tell the LORD God that she said anything, he told him that she gave it to him, and he ate it.

So, now the whole "fall of man" is supposedly caused by a woman being talked into eating from a forbidden tree, by a talking snake who she says "tricked" her with the Truth. She was not actually commanded not to eat; it was more of a strong suggestion by God, who feared for her life.

After eating, Eve then supposedly talked her husband into eating the forbidden fruit , although neither Adam nor Eve mention any conversation. He was explicity commanded by the LORD God not to eat of it.

So far, the only real "sin" committed was by the man. He was commanded not to eat from that tree, and he did. Can we now blame original sin on Adam instead of Eve?

I suppose we could blame Adam, but, his "sin" pales in comparison to the sins committed by none other than the LORD God. Keep in mind that I am not just making this stuff up; it is right there in your Bible collecting dust (or dead men I guess). So, wipe off the remains of your dead relatives, and open it up to Genesis 2 and 3, and read for yourself.

These are the "sins" committed by the LORD God.
1. Lying - He lied to Adam when he told him that he would “surely die“ from eating of the tree. He did not "surely die" from eating of the tree, he died because he was prevented access to the "tree of life", which would have granted him immortality.

He also lied when he told the man he was punishing him for "hearkening unto the voice of thy wife". That would be "bearing false witness against thy neighbor". Because, there was no conversation mentioned by neither Adam nor Eve, and, according to the evidence, the LORD God could not hear so well. Or see for that matter. And, what in the world was the LORD God doing "walking in the garden"? Spirits don't "walk"; people do. There's a clue for those who have ears to hear.
2. He "tempted" them with the Tree. That tree should have never been “caused to grow”. As a parent, would you tell yours kids no snacks before dinner, and then place a plateful of cookies in front of them? I hope not. The serpent did not "tempt" Adam and Eve. He did not cause that tree to grow. The temptation was already there, the serpent just spoke the Truth about it.

Come to think of it, why did the LORD God not step in and say something when the serpent spoke to Eve. He instead allowed them to go ahead and eat. Sounds like a setup if I have ever seen one! He put those cookies right in front of their faces! Who exactly is known as the "temptor"? I don't know, could it be.........I'll let the reader answer that one.

3. Murder - Adam did not have to die, the LORD God killed him by denying him access to the Tree of Life. So, they ate from a tree that would not "surely" kill anyone, unless someone stopped them from eating from a tree of life, which was permitted originally.

4. Jealousy - The LORD God did not want the man to become "as one of them (gods)". He did not want the man to "live forever", and he saw to it.

Now, who "beguiled" who?....But, man continues to believe that all those "Names", i.e. God, LORD God, LORD, LORD thy God, Lord GOD, LORD of Hosts.....ect....are just the different names for the same entity, so, he is going to find out the Truth the "hard way" I guess.

To conclude, the doctrine of “Original Sin” is completely unscriptural, and as we have seen, was not committed by the woman. One "commandment" was broken by the man, but, the majority of "sins" were committed by the LORD God. The LORD God planted the forbidden tree, and then stood by and allowed the woman to be enticed into eating from it. He then accused the woman of talking the man into eating, when no words were exchanged. But, the most egregious act was to tell the man that he would “surely die” from eating of the tree, when all the while knowing that the man could then eat from the tree of Life, which would ensure that he would “surely live”. The LORD God did not want man to be immortal, so he took steps to ensure his death.

Those who think that the two conflicting creation stories involve the same entity, and are “complementing” versions of a single creation are terribly misinformed. What God of the entire Universe would curse his own creation? What God would create a man, and then take steps to destroy him? We are taught that God is an omnipotent, all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing God of “goodness”. What Truly “good” God even entertains the idea of evil, much less “know good and evil”? And, if God created man in “his own image”, then why would merely “knowing good and evil” be such a sin? Most people even today “know evil”, but, they do not “practice evil”.

Those who say that death came into being because a woman talked a man into eating from a "forbidden tree" are teaching a lie. Eating from this tree did not cause man to "surely die". Death came into being because man was "forbidden to eat from another tree", which would have literally saved his life. Adam was murdered, lied to, and set up by an entity who wanted nothing more than to destroy him! Who is known as the "destroyer"? Could it be..........

Remember, man was created in the "image of God", right?.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:23
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
So, why did death come into being?

Wisdom of Solomon 2:24
Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

We are taught that Satan was a "fallen angel". A "good guy turned evil". So, Satan qualifies as one who certainly "knows good and evil". He is also known as "the deceiver", "the destroyer", and "the adversary" who is the "god of this world".

In Genesis 1, we have the "Spirit of God moving upon the waters". In Genesis 2 we have, the "the LORD God walking and talking in the garden". (hint hint)

Now, read John 8, and hear what Jesus is saying. He is trying to clue you in on something. Those with ears will hear.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here is some serious "irony", and extremely prophetic.

"When the LORD God split the Adam, all hell broke loose"

"When man split the Atom, all hell broke loose"

I wonder if God is kicking Themself for taking that "day off"?

Disclaimer: I must reiterate that I did not make this stuff up. And, I am not attacking our Creator, at least not the One I know. Unlike most church doctrine, everything I have written is completely backed by evidence taken from the King James Version of the Bible. If you disagree with anything I have written, I suggest that you pick up the book and read it very carefully. Then, if you want to debate, take it up with Moses. After all, he wrote it, right?

It is a shame when Truth has to be posted under "Unorthodox Theology". Oh the irony!

peace

steve eden

[whacky888]

I am currently fascinated by the some of the early Gnostic writings and interpretations, which seem to see this god as a pretty bad character.

Don't tell anyone that they can key in www.gnosis.org, and read all that "hidden manna". Especially the ones found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945 by a Muslim peasant named "Mohammed Ali".

Don't tell people the fact that many of these early writings were found completely intact, and not extremely "fragmented" like those writings found at Qumran, which get all the "press". Don't tell them that the Dead Sea scrolls are pretty much worthless, and the ones found at Nag Hammadi, which get no press, contains more of Jesus' Word than the four canonical "gospels" put together. Let people continue to believe that those "Gnostics" were heretics, despite the fact that the very Word "gnosis" means "knower". We would not want people to actually find some Truth. That would spoil all the fun!

We certainly do not want to "feed pearls to swine", or "give what is Holy to dogs", would we?

It does not matter what we write, or what Truths we reveal. Because, "no one wants to drink new wine after drinking the old; for the old is good enough". Except for the fact that Jesus did not really think so. The most important Words He spoke at the last supper were not what they think.

"I will not drink of the fruit of this vine (Christian doctrine) until I drink it new with you in MY Father's Kingdom".

Don't tell anyone. Let them be content to worship Jesus like the devil, and continue to partake of that ritual which makes them appear to be "cannibalistic vampires", with all that "eating His body and drinking His blood" stuff. All while worshipping that "graven image" of a bloodied up dude hanging on a cross.

If you tell Christians anything contrary to the traditional ignorance, they will just condemn to eternal hellfire, or worse, they might want to "pray for your soul". No thank you. They have no idea what they are praying to!

Check out a couple blogs I wrote. I haven't written on them lately, because I am trying to finish the first book. You might find them interesting.

http://chroniclesofeden.blogspot.com
http://newerwine.blogstream.com

Keep the faith, and keep on seeking. You are almost there.

peace

steve eden

Steve, you can't advertise your personal sites in your posts. If you wish to link to your blogs, you may do so in your signature file like everyone else.

[NeilUnreal]

I think you have to look at the story in terms of its polemic value as a myth. In similar myths from that time and earlier there was only one tree. Genesis splits this into two trees: one conveying life and the other death.

So the question is, why was knowledge associated with the tree of death? Quite possibly it was a polemic against religious knowledge in the sense that religion and "scientific" knowledge could be equated at the time. By "scientific," I mean magisterial science such as early astrology/astronomy, chemistry/alchemy, etc. It may also refer to cultic knowledge of other religions of the time.

In other words, it was arguing in favor of directly revealed knowledge (e.g. God's commands) vs. magisterial and cultic knowledge.

I don't think that the fact that there is a pun on literal vs. figurative death (by expulsion) was lost on the original readers. They would have understood the idea that disobeying God by aligning with the magisterial and cultic sources of knowledge around them would have entailed spiritual death and expulsion from the faithful, even if it brought them more fully into the day-to-day life of those of other religions around them. This may even be a deliberate introduction to the story, intended to counter those who failed to remain faithful and then used arguments like: "See? God didn't strike me down."

It's interesting that the gnostics once again polemically invert the myth. But I don't think the result of that inversion is very similar to the ur-tree myth that the initial writers of Genesis were writing polemically against.

There is a temptation to believe that our own personal changes in the understanding of a story recapitulate the history of how that story was understood. That is, to take the view that since "I understood the myth one way as a child, now I have a more sophisticated view," implies that the ancients understood the myth as I did while a child. Sometimes this is the case, but it is not necessarily the case. Not being subjected to a constant influx of information gave the ancients time to develop and recognize very subtle nuances in the texts they were writing and reading. Rediscovering these, we are in danger of recognizing "hidden" knowledge in things that might have been very plain to the original readers. I think the gnostics fell into this trap a time or two when dealing with ancient sources. Although to be fair to them, I think they may also have seen what they were doing as more of a recapitulation than a discovery.

-Neil

[barnasha]

well knowledge, by itself, is dead. those who invest their life in it are walking dead.

like people who live for dogmas instead of what they are meant to represent. when one does this, they cease to be 'living', instead siphoning off their existence into a fantasy dreamworld in their head, based on the knowledge of men. like people who define themselves as 'american' and "live the american dream", they invest their spirit into maintaining an alternate reality so as to escape from the real one.

thus, one must be 'born again', in spirit.

[whacky888]

well knowledge, by itself, is dead. those who invest their life in it are walking dead.

It certainly does appear that knowledge is dead, doesn't it? I would say that knowledge "in itself" is not dead; but, rather knowledge of the Truth is dead. As the story goes, Jesus is written to be "the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". Now, when you call someone the "Truth", and then write how man killed him on a cross, what have you really killed? The Truth.

Believe it or not, even our Creator(s) abide by the law of "cause and effect". Providence did not write the books. Man did. The books then become the "cause". It is now incumbent on Providence to somehow make them True; which is the "effect".

Knowledge is all we can Truly accumulate. How can you know Wisdom without knowledge? Man cannot, because he does not have knowledge of Truth. So now, finding Truth is really not possible without eliminating all the lies. How can man do that without knowledge?

I love that Jesus character. It does not matter one bit whether He was actually as you say, "real" or not. It is not about the character, it is about the "Words" of the character. Christians have a bad habit of worshipping the character, and ignoring the Words, so they remain blind and ignorant. There are a few things He said that address this quite nicely.

"Become zealous about the Word. For the Word's first condition is faith; the second is love; the third is works. Now from these comes life. For the Word is like a grain of wheat. When someone sowed it, he believed in it; and when it sprouted, he loved it, because he looked forward to many grains in the place of one; and when he worked it, he was saved, because he prepared it for food. Again he left some grains to sow. Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: (but), unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it. (Secret Book of James)

Not in the Bible, of course, so obviously James was a "heretic".

"Hearken to the word, understand knowledge, love life, and no one will persecute you, nor will anyone oppress you, other than you yourselves." (Secret Book of James)

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This is in the Bible, but, no one seems to ever listen to anything Yeshua ben "somebody", a.k.a. Jesus the Christ said, they prefer the words of a certain "heel-striker" named Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paulus, a.k.a. Paul. Jesus addressed this as well.

John 5:43 - I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

they invest their spirit into maintaining an alternate reality so as to escape from the real one.

I believe that every messenger of every faith would humbly disagree. It is close, however. It might be said that they invent an alternate reality to escape from the "illusion".

thus, one must be 'born again', in spirit.

How many Bible-thumpers do you think Truly knows what this means? They must be "born-again of the water" as well. 'Goodness gracious, have I been baptised yet??.....hope so.....:)

Just wait until all those folks "living the american dream" find out that it is really a nightmare! Let the weeping and gnashing begin!

You appear to me as someone who has accumulated some knowledge. Because, there certainly is some Wisdom in what you write.

Here is a little poem I put together a few years ago.

My work is finished.
My job is to endure.
My duty is to humbly serve Truth/Wisdom,
the one you say is your God
But, you don't know Them
Because, you refuse to become as a child
And learn the Truth
Who grants the Wisdom
Who leads you back from whence you came
But, you don’t know Her, because
You worship your own creation
A god created in the image of man
My work is a mission of futility.
Because of a certain tree man won't stop eating of
Because of bitter wine man won't stop mixing and guzzling
You are drunk, blind, and lost in a sea of ignorance
Because you choose to believe the deception and cast away Truth
And the deceiver is man
Ironic to be sure
So the work never gets done
Because man is too busy with his job serving mammon
He never listens, so he reaps what he sows
And when man created his hell, it became his "kingdom of heaven on earth"
But, you won't believe Truth. You never did.
Sadly, the work will never be completed
So, we start all over....again!

peace

steve eden

[whacky888]

why would he not change his name from "YHVH saves" (Joshua/Jesus) to something more fitting?

Actually Z, the proper etymology is a bit different than what is actually written. "Yeshua", or "Joshua" actually would be more correct as "salvation of Yahweh".

If you have ever believed anything anybody ever says, believe this. Please, don't let the clusterF&^# of religion turn you to atheism. It is understandable that you might feel this way, but remember, Providence has to be everything to every faith. It is a hard task to be sure. But, to believe that this world just happened, with no Creative force is kind of like just giving up.

Trust someone in this world. Believe me, I know there is a presense of what humans call "god". How do I know? I met Them.

You are wise in not subscribing to religious doctrine, so if you want to know how to "worship", here is what you can do.

Walk down the street on a nice sunny day. Look all around and just wave. Say, "Hi Dad, Hi Mom, Hi Sun. Love ya".

We came into this world "naked", and it is wise if we also leave this world the same way. Naked of "religious garments", but, don't let religion steal your soul.

Allow me to give you a few quotes from some pretty smart people.

The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically.
If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens.
In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. Stephen Hawking

That makes sense, does it not? And, just to think that guy has to blow through a straw just to talk! Of course, his name is Stephen, so I might be partial.....:)

"There are few people so stubborn in their atheism who, when danger is pressing in, will not acknowledge the divine power." - Plato

I would not know for sure, as I am not an atheist. But, I hear that Plato dude was pretty bright as well. Although, I don't think he talked through a straw.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." - Albert Einstein

Capitalize "Spirit", and change "himself" to "Ourself", and Einstein would have been a freaking genious! Oh, that's right. He was a genious. Thanks Al for splitting that Atom. The world is a much better place now. You know, Einstein really died unhappy. He hated himself, because, he knew the ramifications. Sorry Al.

But, old Albert was not an atheist to be sure.

Here is one of my blurps.

You can float easily through life two ways. Either believe everything, or believe nothing. Both save you the job of thinking.

"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities." Sigmund Freud

Ah heck. Freud was probably coked-up when he said that. He probably did not know that it was actually beer that makes you smart.

After all, they made Budweiser.

If anyone reading this does not get that joke, please do not reply. Thanks.

[whacky888]

Actually, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil meant a couple of different things from a prophetic standpoint.

In this context, let us look at this tree as being symbolic for man's "dictated morality". Adam is actually being told not to let man decide what is good, and what is evil. Don't allow man to dictate your moral beliefs.

Even a dog knows "good FROM evil". Sadly, man has yet to figure this one out.

More specifically, that tree represented what we know as "mosaic law". Not those ten commandments, but, rather the other 613 rules known to Jews as "Mitzvahs".

Like the one that says,

"If a man has been injured in his stones, or hath his privy member cut off, he cannot enter into the congregation of the LORD" (chapter/verse....you got me!....it's in there though. Google it?)

or,

"A bastard cannot enter into the congregation of the LORD. Even to his tenth generation shall he not enter"

Poor Solomon. Probably the real "Jesus" too.

Of course, Jesus was "hung on a tree", and everyone knows that God said, "he that is hung on a tree is accursed of the LORD", so it does not matter whether Jesus was a bastard son of a Roman soldier named Pandira or not.

Unless Jesus knew the "loopholes" like David. David was smart. He had Uriah killed before he doinked his wife. And, David evidently could carry out that "fury of the LORD'S wrath" way better than Saul. When the LORD says kill everything and everyone, he freaking means everything Saul!

The point is....when you eat from a knowledge tree containing both good and evil knowledge, what knowledge do you think you are going to get? If you do not get both, then God is a liar, right? Now, everyone listen up.

Which fruit did the man and woman eat? hint....they were "ashamed".
Now, everyone can go read about Jesus' first "miracle", and maybe they can see which knowledge came first. Christians listen up.

It was not a freaking magic trick! He did not say "hocus-pocus, Father of mine. Please turn these six jugs of water into sweet vintage wine".

It was not "literally" True, I "swear to God" it wasn't! Jesus said I could swear to God on that one, He swears to God; or Himself; or His other Dad, the Holy Ghost. Sounds kind of like the TV show "three and a half men". Or, Heaven is akin to a Turkish bath house. Ouch! I'm going to hell for that one.

Providence has a terrific sense of humor; so please, no eternal "death threats".

Can you tell it's late? I am getting really sarcastically goofy. Is "really" an adjective in this sentence? Hate when adjectives run together.

I guess the question really should be, if man was told not to eat from this tree in the first place, then why in tarnation does he continued to munch on it?

Here's a clue for those with understanding.

Women nibble, and eat like "birds". Men gobble stuff down; they eat like "pigs", or "dogs".

Now, ask yourself; what if that "karma" stuff was real? What if you really did "reap what you sow"?

Now ask; why doesn't bad stuff happen to bad people?

I just love allegories and riddles. That way, you can dish out some "pearls", and not worry about the dogs and pigs catching on. Jesus knew that too.

Reincarnation. Boy there's a doctrine straight outta the pit of hell! Ask any pastor, they'll tell ya.

Then, when they do, we can ask them; "Pastor Billy Bob, dem dere dogs shore do worsheep they's masta, don't dey"? And, dem dere peegs, dey is smarter n' I is, how come?

One little last tidbit. An article appeared the same day a few months ago in the New York and Los Angeles Times. It stated that the Orangutang is not man's closest relative.

Man is one chromosome removed from a domesticated dog.

It never appeared again.

Sort of like the time they said a study revealed that cell phones caused brain cancer.

And, like the day after 9/11, when Bin Laden was reported to have said that Al-Quaeda did not have anything to do with it, but, if we wanted to give them credit, they would take it.

Sometimes the Truth gets out. It just doesn't "stay" out.

It's because of that damn "liberal" media.

Ok. Two more questions.

If you wanted to teach someone good and evil, which one would you teach them first?

and,

If you do not trust your car to just any mechanic, why do you place (what you perceive) your eternal destiny in the hands of just any preacher, minister, priest, rabbi, or cleric? Did I forget "guru"? Whoops. Better stay out of Asia, the Holy Spirit forbade the disciples to preach in Asia. Paul sent someone anyway. He knew, or at least he thought it was ok. Just like:

1 Corinthians 7:40 - But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

He thought he had the Spirit of God? Which one?

1 Corinthians 4:9 - For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Paul "thought". I "know". And, I know something else. That whole "Son of man" thing is not all it's cracked up to be. But, who am I?

peace

steve eden

[Sparko]

I deleted Zeluvia and Freethinker's posts and replies to them because this is a theist only area. Please read the stickies at the top of all areas before posting in them

[Bernie]

...if you would really know what happened in the garden, you would realize that the serpent was the ONE entity in the whole garden debacle who actually told the Truth! Certainly, an “all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing” omnipresent God would have heard the conversation, and stepped in to stop the so-called “con-job”. But, the LORD God never saw, heard, or knew about it evidently, unless he was in on the conspiracy. Original Sin could have been thwarted from the start if the LORD God wanted to stop it, right? He can’t be deaf, dumb and blind, can he? He did nothing to prevent it, so that makes him at minimum guilty of something. He stood back and allowed the entire “fall of man” to happen without lifting a finger to stop it. He is guilty of far more than that as we will see. He punishes everyone severely for something he could have stopped. The serpent supposedly tricked the woman, but, as we see, he was spared the “death penalty”.
Sorry whacky, but your logic fell completely apart for me by time I got to the above. I'm doubtless no better than a lot of folks in managing the willful suspension of disbelief necessary to objectively consider new ideas. The premises need to be sufficiently plausible to carry the idea through to its end.

[whacky888]

Sorry whacky, but your logic fell completely apart for me by time I got to the above.

Have you read the story? I will quickly recap for you.

What did the serpent say to the woman?

Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

He asks her if God said she could not eat of every tree of the garden. Not just one tree, but every tree. It was a question, not a statement.

And, the woman replies,

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Since there were actually two trees in the midst of the garden, we cannot be totally certain which one. However, the serpent clears it up. Keep in mind that this is God talking to the woman, as opposed to the LORD God talking to the man. And, the word "lest" means "for fear that" when used in this context. So, God told her not to eat of it, or touch it "for fear that" she would die.

So, the serpent then says,

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

God did not want the woman to be as "gods", and notice the lack of capitalization. God did not want her to know good and evil like the "gods". For reasons I will not address here.

The simple Truth is that is all the serpent told her. We do not actually know from the words what happened to the woman, because, she ended up on the "editing" floor after chapter 3 of Genesis. The serpent did say that she would not "surely die", and God verified this statement. God did not tell her that she would "surely die" as well. He said he was afraid she might die.

No lie there. Because, the LORD God did not give her the death penalty.

But, the LORD God said to all his god buddies, "now the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and live forever".

Did the serpent lie? NO.

Did the LORD God lie when he told the man he would "surely die" if he ate from that tree? YES.

He "surely died" because the LORD God prevented him from "taking also of the tree of life and live forever". Tje man did not "surely die" by eating of the tree. He died because he could not gain access to the other tree that would have granted him immortality. It was the LORD God who placed those Cheribum and the rotating flaming sword in the way to prevent it.

So, the man did surely die, because, the LORD God saw to it that he did. It amounts to homicide.

You write as one who possesses some intelligence. I do not quite understand how I lost you.

The premises need to be sufficiently plausible to carry the idea through to its end.

The premise was carried through to the end, as I was addressing "Original Sin", and not the entire story.

You see, the woman was never prevented access to the "tree of life", which is why we can safely assume that she did not die. She was just eighty-sixed from the Bible "from the foundation of the world".

This story of mine is not based on "symbolic" interpretation, it was based on the "literal" evidence provided in the story.

Try reading it again, and have the King James Version of the Bible opened up in order to follow along. Maybe that will clear things up for you.

It appears that maybe the "logic" is not faulty, but rather, failing to understand the logic might be the problem here.

peace

[37818]

Well, whacky888,

You do tell an intersting version of the account.

The Serpent first asks the question. Which is questioning what God said.

Second, we are told what the woman was told through her. No other record.

Third, the serpent tells his lie, "Ye shell not surely die." Meaning both her and Adam.

Fourth, the serpent argues for his lie using truth: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now you suppose when Eve gave Adam by her some of the fruit that she didn't say anything. God, who is all knowing, said to Adam, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, . . ." I'll believe God on this one.

Now Jesus refered to the Devil as a liar and murderer because of the Devil's lie and that Adam and Eve did die in the garden that day, and further more God kept them from the tree of eternal life, so they would not become immoral in sin. So Adam and Eve were dead in the garden, even as Christ died on the cross. If you will note (Romans 5:8), Christ finished the payment for sin on the cross (John 19:28) before He physically died (John 19:30.)

You see, it is God's knowledge of good and evil, which in mankind results in sin. When God made man He made man good. But man is finite, only God is infinite, and infinitely good. And no amount of evil will negate God's good. (The all good God problem.)

Now the whole human race has inherited God's knowledge of good and evil from our first parents. And because of this those of the human race who get judged (condemned) in the judgement will be judged according to God's holy standard. (Revelation 20:11-15; Revelation 21:8.) Not for what Adam did but for their own deeds.

[Carico]

The creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are very interesting. They are also very, very important in solving the mystery of all mysteries. The Bible is a complex book. It is first and foremost a collection of stories penned by many different authors. The authors were human beings, specifically men. This is not to say that our Creator did not influence the writers in order to have some Truth inserted in this book, but, to say that the Bible was written by "the finger of God" is ludicrous. Let us look first at the event that Christians/Jews say is the single cause of man's fall from grace, Original Sin.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The LORD God made the trees grow. Including the "forbidden" tree.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt "SURELY DIE".

Not exactly the Truth.

Gen 3:1-6 Now the serpent was more subtil than ANY beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, LEST ye die". And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God (capitalized) doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (not capitalized), knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one WISE, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

LORD God did not make the serpent. He was more subtle than "any" of the beasts of the field that he made. Not "any other of the beasts", rather all of them.

God tells Eve not to eat or touch it, "LEST" she die. Lest means "for fear that". God said don't eat or touch it, because I am afraid that you might die. He did not "guarantee" she would die, as in "surely" she would. And, why would God not want the couple to know the difference between good and evil? So, they could determine or distinguish what was good from bad?....because that is not what the tree represented. It was a "knowledge tree", which would provide the knowledge that would make one "wise", and evidently the LORD God did not want the couple to become "wise". Why not? The reason will surprise many, and I will address this in another post dealing with the prophetic significance of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.

So, she is "beguiled" by the serpent, who, contrary to popular belief, did not actually "lie" to her. He told her the Truth. She eats, and he eats, and all hell breaks loose. So the LORD God dishes out the punishment to Eve and the serpent, which indicates something that goes completely unnoticed by all these “Lambs of God” who think that they actually can properly interpret the “scrolls”.

Christians and Jews are taught that the “serpent” was a literal snake, and the LORD God punished the snake by removing his legs, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust! So, Eve was a victim of a con-job from none other than a talking snake with legs! But, before the LORD God pulls the legs out from under the serpent, he tells him that he is now “cursed more than all CATTLE, and more than EVERY BEAST OF THE FIELD”.

So, what the LORD God is saying is interesting. He evidently “cursed” all cattle, and every beast of the field before the forbidden tree incident. He cursed the serpent MORE than he had already “cursed all cattle and beasts of the field”! You simply cannot curse something “more” than something else, unless that something else had already been cursed! You cannot ascribe a greater curse, unless you have another curse to use as an example of comparison. The LORD God compared the curse of the serpent to the curse placed on the cattle and beasts of the field.

Two things science has proven concerning “serpents”. No evidence has been uncovered that even suggests the possibility of snakes ever having legs. Not even evolutionists claim the notion that snakes ever walked with legs, and losing them through the process of evolution. There is no fossil records which indicate that snakes suddenly became “legless” 6000 years ago. Another thing we know about “serpents” is their diet. Snakes eat small mammals, particularly rodents. Snakes do not eat “dust”. Here is a challenge to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world. Find me one “walking, talking, dust-eating” snake, and I will concede to you that the Bible is the “literal” Word of God. Actually, let this challenge go out to all fundamentalists who hold to the notion that the Bible can be interpreted “literally”, by showing me the evidence of such a creature. You can’t. So, get over yourselves. You are making both yourself and God look silly.

The serpent was not a literal snake, period. And, if you would really know what happened in the garden, you would realize that the serpent was the ONE entity in the whole garden debacle who actually told the Truth! Certainly, an “all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing” omnipresent God would have heard the conversation, and stepped in to stop the so-called “con-job”. But, the LORD God never saw, heard, or knew about it evidently, unless he was in on the conspiracy. Original Sin could have been thwarted from the start if the LORD God wanted to stop it, right? He can’t be deaf, dumb and blind, can he? He did nothing to prevent it, so that makes him at minimum guilty of something. He stood back and allowed the entire “fall of man” to happen without lifting a finger to stop it. He is guilty of far more than that as we will see. He punishes everyone severely for something he could have stopped. The serpent supposedly tricked the woman, but, as we see, he was spared the “death penalty”.

Christians and Jews are taught that the LORD God punished Eve by making it painful during childbirth. The LORD God punished her with Labor pains! Evidently, the LORD God had never pooped out a bowling ball! He would have then known that natural law states that when something the size of a bowling ball comes out of an opening the size of a vagina, uh…..it’s gonna hurt! This is of course, not what the verse means, but Christians are telling us that God’s “literal” Word tells us that the LORD God was hard of hearing, seeing, and evidently has an I.Q somewhere in the range of George Bush.

The LORD God also punished her by telling her that “her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her”. Who was her “desire” supposed to for, and who was supposed to “rule over her”? For the LORD God to tell Eve that as her “punishment”, her desire would (now) be for her husband, and he would (now) rule over her. We have to assume that this was not supposed to be the case originally. Some different arrangement had to have existed for the LORD God to make this declaration of retribution. He is basically “changing” the situation by making Eve (now) subservient to her husband, and (now) her desire would be for him.

We are given some further evidence in Gen 2:23. After putting the man in a deep sleep, and performing “rib surgery”, the LORD God then takes the rib somewhere to make a woman, and brings her back to the man. We are not told how He did this “magic trick”, but, good magicians do not reveal their secrets, and the Bible is chalk-full of fantastic prestidigitators. Gen 2:23 is the dialogue from the man after the LORD God brings him the woman. It is translated in a variety of ways depending on the source, but, it stresses something interesting, so I will paraphrase. The man says, and apparently he is quite proud of the fact that “finally! Or, at last! This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, and I will call her woman, because she was taken out of man”! The key words are “now”, “finally”, or “at last”, meaning whatever existed as the arrangement or process prior to the “rib trick” was different. The LORD God changed it, and apparently it was much to the man’s liking, because the man was pretty pumped about the new arrangement. I will address the creation stories in detail in another chronicle, but, for now I will stick to the “origin” of original sin.

The LORD God also tells the woman, and the serpent that He would put “enmity between Eve and the serpent, and between her seed and his seed”. And, “she would bruise his head, and he would bruise her heel”. Again, the LORD God declares that he is going to “put enmity” between her and the serpent. Now, “enmity” is a word to describe an intense, and deep-seated hatred. It is better described as an extremely “bitter” hatred. Mortal enemy type hate. And, the LORD God placed this intense hatred between her seed (offspring), and the seed (offspring) of the serpent. So, the woman was going to “bruise the serpents head, and he was going to bruise her heel”. This is pure prophesy, and I will deal with this specifically in another chronicle.

But, again we notice that Eve does not receive the “death penalty”, which is ironic, since she was the cause of all hell breaking loose on earth. According to the standard Christian doctrine of Original Sin, the one who should have “surely died” was Eve, after all, it was all her fault, right? If it were True, it would be the world’s first and most obvious case of entrapment. I’ll explain how, but first, let’s examine the man’s punishment.

When the LORD God gets to the man, he really sticks it to him. He was punished for “listening to the woman”, and the LORD God gives him the death penalty! Now, if I were a lawyer, I would argue that the woman did not say a word to the man. The evidence is clear, and indisputable. The Bible says, and I quote, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat“. According to the evidence, it looks like she ate, and gave it to her husband, and he then ate. No words were exchanged. She did not ask him to eat, nor did she suggest to him to eat. She simply handed it to him, and he ate willingly. He chose to eat it, she did not force it down his throat, nor did she have to “talk him into it”. There is no evidence that she spoke at all. And, what is the reason the LORD God gives for punishing the man?

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

What was Adam’s “sin”? The LORD God says that he was being punished because he “hearkened to the VOICE of thy wife”. How? She handed it to him, and he ate. No conversation is recorded. I mean, if the LORD God would have said, “because she handed it to you, and you ate it, knowing that I told you not to,…….” But, the LORD God specifically mentions that Adam “hearkened unto her VOICE” The word “hearken” means “to listen attentively”, or “to give heed”. If the reason the LORD God gives for putting the hammer down on Adam was for “listening attentively, and heeding the VOICE of his wife”, I would certainly think we are entitled to know exactly what she said, since Eve is officially blamed for the act that has plagued humanity for 6000 years!

The evidence shows that Adam was not “talked into” eating anything, and he clearly did not “hearken unto her voice”. How would the LORD God know that Eve even spoke to the man? He couldn’t hear so well when Eve and the serpent actually had a conversation, but, now he charges Adam for heeding words that were never spoken.

The LORD God the proceeds to punish the man. First, he “curses” the ground because of Adam. He curses Adam with a dose of depression, as he will then eat of the ground “in sorrow”. He apparently will be eating the “herb of the field”, which included thorns and thistles. He will eat bread “by the sweat of his brow all the days of his life”, and then return to “dust”. Then, evidently he becomes “snake food”, as the serpent is now a “dust-eater”! Adam was told that if he ate of the forbidden tree, he would “surely die in the day that he ate of it”. And, he did. Just not literally “in the same 24 hour day”. Now, the real problem with the story unfolds in a major way.

Gen 3:22-24 presents some Truth that Christians/Jews do not seem to see.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

What? You mean that all the LORD God had to do was to allow the man access to the Tree of Life, and what?.....He would have "surely lived"! So, the LORD God boots the man from the garden, and places the "cherubim and the rotating flaming sword" to keep the man from being able to even come near that Tree. A tree that would have kept him from "surely dying".

LORD God did not want the man to become like "them". Who exactly is the "us"? According to the serpent, the "us" were "gods". And, so far the serpent has not lied.So, the LORD God did not want the man to become "as one of us (gods)". Somebody forgot to tell the LORD God that he was "the only God there is, and besides me there is no other". Actually, the verses say "beside", but, what difference can one little letter make? PLENTY. More on that later.

In reality, what the LORD God should have told the man was, "don't eat from that tree, for in the day you eat of it, I will SURELY SEE TO IT THAT YOU DIE"!

Let us now examine exactly what "sins" were committed in the garden.

Eve - Not much. She was never actually "commanded" her not to eat from the tree. God told her basically not to eat or even touch the tree, because God feared that if she did, she would die. She did tell a little white lie when she said that the serpent "beguiled" her. The serpent never actually "tricked" her, he kind of just talked her into it. She was punished for listening to a talking snake.

The Serpent - As far a sins go, the serpent committed zero. He did not lie to the woman, he just told her the facts. Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut, but, he did nothing that could be considered sinful. The last time I checked, telling the Truth was not a sin. What did he tell her?
1. He told her that she would not "surely die". She did not die, contrary to false teaching.
2. He told her that by eating of the tree, they would become "as gods knowing good and evil". Not a lie according to the LORD God, whose whole reasoning for booting the man was the fact that he (and she) had "become as one of them, (gods) knowing good and evil".

So, the serpent had his legs chopped off, and given a steady diet of dust (or dead men) for what? Telling the Truth. He did not "tempt" her nearly as much as the LORD God did by "causing this tree to grow" in the first place.

Adam - He did disobey a direct order. He should have listened, but, he did not deserve the "death penalty", did he? He ate willingly, he was not "talked into it" by Eve, according to the evidence. He gets punished for what? Listening to his wife, who, according to the evidence, did not say a word to him, she simply handed it to him, and he did eat. She should have spoke up and said, "whoah there LG, I did not say squat to him"! Adam also did not tell the LORD God that she said anything, he told him that she gave it to him, and he ate it.

So, now the whole "fall of man" is supposedly caused by a woman being talked into eating from a forbidden tree, by a talking snake who she says "tricked" her with the Truth. She was not actually commanded not to eat; it was more of a strong suggestion by God, who feared for her life.

After eating, Eve then supposedly talked her husband into eating the forbidden fruit , although neither Adam nor Eve mention any conversation. He was explicity commanded by the LORD God not to eat of it.

So far, the only real "sin" committed was by the man. He was commanded not to eat from that tree, and he did. Can we now blame original sin on Adam instead of Eve?

I suppose we could blame Adam, but, his "sin" pales in comparison to the sins committed by none other than the LORD God. Keep in mind that I am not just making this stuff up; it is right there in your Bible collecting dust (or dead men I guess). So, wipe off the remains of your dead relatives, and open it up to Genesis 2 and 3, and read for yourself.

These are the "sins" committed by the LORD God.
1. Lying - He lied to Adam when he told him that he would “surely die“ from eating of the tree. He did not "surely die" from eating of the tree, he died because he was prevented access to the "tree of life", which would have granted him immortality.

He also lied when he told the man he was punishing him for "hearkening unto the voice of thy wife". That would be "bearing false witness against thy neighbor". Because, there was no conversation mentioned by neither Adam nor Eve, and, according to the evidence, the LORD God could not hear so well. Or see for that matter. And, what in the world was the LORD God doing "walking in the garden"? Spirits don't "walk"; people do. There's a clue for those who have ears to hear.
2. He "tempted" them with the Tree. That tree should have never been “caused to grow”. As a parent, would you tell yours kids no snacks before dinner, and then place a plateful of cookies in front of them? I hope not. The serpent did not "tempt" Adam and Eve. He did not cause that tree to grow. The temptation was already there, the serpent just spoke the Truth about it.

Come to think of it, why did the LORD God not step in and say something when the serpent spoke to Eve. He instead allowed them to go ahead and eat. Sounds like a setup if I have ever seen one! He put those cookies right in front of their faces! Who exactly is known as the "temptor"? I don't know, could it be.........I'll let the reader answer that one.

3. Murder - Adam did not have to die, the LORD God killed him by denying him access to the Tree of Life. So, they ate from a tree that would not "surely" kill anyone, unless someone stopped them from eating from a tree of life, which was permitted originally.

4. Jealousy - The LORD God did not want the man to become "as one of them (gods)". He did not want the man to "live forever", and he saw to it.

Now, who "beguiled" who?....But, man continues to believe that all those "Names", i.e. God, LORD God, LORD, LORD thy God, Lord GOD, LORD of Hosts.....ect....are just the different names for the same entity, so, he is going to find out the Truth the "hard way" I guess.

To conclude, the doctrine of “Original Sin” is completely unscriptural, and as we have seen, was not committed by the woman. One "commandment" was broken by the man, but, the majority of "sins" were committed by the LORD God. The LORD God planted the forbidden tree, and then stood by and allowed the woman to be enticed into eating from it. He then accused the woman of talking the man into eating, when no words were exchanged. But, the most egregious act was to tell the man that he would “surely die” from eating of the tree, when all the while knowing that the man could then eat from the tree of Life, which would ensure that he would “surely live”. The LORD God did not want man to be immortal, so he took steps to ensure his death.

Those who think that the two conflicting creation stories involve the same entity, and are “complementing” versions of a single creation are terribly misinformed. What God of the entire Universe would curse his own creation? What God would create a man, and then take steps to destroy him? We are taught that God is an omnipotent, all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing God of “goodness”. What Truly “good” God even entertains the idea of evil, much less “know good and evil”? And, if God created man in “his own image”, then why would merely “knowing good and evil” be such a sin? Most people even today “know evil”, but, they do not “practice evil”.

Those who say that death came into being because a woman talked a man into eating from a "forbidden tree" are teaching a lie. Eating from this tree did not cause man to "surely die". Death came into being because man was "forbidden to eat from another tree", which would have literally saved his life. Adam was murdered, lied to, and set up by an entity who wanted nothing more than to destroy him! Who is known as the "destroyer"? Could it be..........

Remember, man was created in the "image of God", right?.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:23
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
So, why did death come into being?

Wisdom of Solomon 2:24
Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

We are taught that Satan was a "fallen angel". A "good guy turned evil". So, Satan qualifies as one who certainly "knows good and evil". He is also known as "the deceiver", "the destroyer", and "the adversary" who is the "god of this world".

In Genesis 1, we have the "Spirit of God moving upon the waters". In Genesis 2 we have, the "the LORD God walking and talking in the garden". (hint hint)

Now, read John 8, and hear what Jesus is saying. He is trying to clue you in on something. Those with ears will hear.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here is some serious "irony", and extremely prophetic.

"When the LORD God split the Adam, all hell broke loose"

"When man split the Atom, all hell broke loose"

I wonder if God is kicking Themself for taking that "day off"?

Disclaimer: I must reiterate that I did not make this stuff up. And, I am not attacking our Creator, at least not the One I know. Unlike most church doctrine, everything I have written is completely backed by evidence taken from the King James Version of the Bible. If you disagree with anything I have written, I suggest that you pick up the book and read it very carefully. Then, if you want to debate, take it up with Moses. After all, he wrote it, right?

It is a shame when Truth has to be posted under "Unorthodox Theology". Oh the irony!

peace

steve eden

Since Eve became as mortal as you and I then the serpent of course did lie. :wink:

[spitndirt]

The creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are very interesting. They are also very, very important in solving the mystery of all mysteries. The Bible is a complex book. It is first and foremost a collection of stories penned by many different authors. The authors were human beings, specifically men. This is not to say that our Creator did not influence the writers in order to have some Truth inserted in this book, but, to say that the Bible was written by "the finger of God" is ludicrous. Let us look first at the event that Christians/Jews say is the single cause of man's fall from grace, Original Sin.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The LORD God made the trees grow. Including the "forbidden" tree.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt "SURELY DIE".

Not exactly the Truth.

Gen 3:1-6 Now the serpent was more subtil than ANY beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, LEST ye die". And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God (capitalized) doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (not capitalized), knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one WISE, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

LORD God did not make the serpent. He was more subtle than "any" of the beasts of the field that he made. Not "any other of the beasts", rather all of them.

God tells Eve not to eat or touch it, "LEST" she die. Lest means "for fear that". God said don't eat or touch it, because I am afraid that you might die. He did not "guarantee" she would die, as in "surely" she would. And, why would God not want the couple to know the difference between good and evil? So, they could determine or distinguish what was good from bad?....because that is not what the tree represented. It was a "knowledge tree", which would provide the knowledge that would make one "wise", and evidently the LORD God did not want the couple to become "wise". Why not? The reason will surprise many, and I will address this in another post dealing with the prophetic significance of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.

So, she is "beguiled" by the serpent, who, contrary to popular belief, did not actually "lie" to her. He told her the Truth. She eats, and he eats, and all hell breaks loose. So the LORD God dishes out the punishment to Eve and the serpent, which indicates something that goes completely unnoticed by all these “Lambs of God” who think that they actually can properly interpret the “scrolls”.

Christians and Jews are taught that the “serpent” was a literal snake, and the LORD God punished the snake by removing his legs, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust! So, Eve was a victim of a con-job from none other than a talking snake with legs! But, before the LORD God pulls the legs out from under the serpent, he tells him that he is now “cursed more than all CATTLE, and more than EVERY BEAST OF THE FIELD”.

So, what the LORD God is saying is interesting. He evidently “cursed” all cattle, and every beast of the field before the forbidden tree incident. He cursed the serpent MORE than he had already “cursed all cattle and beasts of the field”! You simply cannot curse something “more” than something else, unless that something else had already been cursed! You cannot ascribe a greater curse, unless you have another curse to use as an example of comparison. The LORD God compared the curse of the serpent to the curse placed on the cattle and beasts of the field.

Two things science has proven concerning “serpents”. No evidence has been uncovered that even suggests the possibility of snakes ever having legs. Not even evolutionists claim the notion that snakes ever walked with legs, and losing them through the process of evolution. There is no fossil records which indicate that snakes suddenly became “legless” 6000 years ago. Another thing we know about “serpents” is their diet. Snakes eat small mammals, particularly rodents. Snakes do not eat “dust”. Here is a challenge to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world. Find me one “walking, talking, dust-eating” snake, and I will concede to you that the Bible is the “literal” Word of God. Actually, let this challenge go out to all fundamentalists who hold to the notion that the Bible can be interpreted “literally”, by showing me the evidence of such a creature. You can’t. So, get over yourselves. You are making both yourself and God look silly.

The serpent was not a literal snake, period. And, if you would really know what happened in the garden, you would realize that the serpent was the ONE entity in the whole garden debacle who actually told the Truth! Certainly, an “all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing” omnipresent God would have heard the conversation, and stepped in to stop the so-called “con-job”. But, the LORD God never saw, heard, or knew about it evidently, unless he was in on the conspiracy. Original Sin could have been thwarted from the start if the LORD God wanted to stop it, right? He can’t be deaf, dumb and blind, can he? He did nothing to prevent it, so that makes him at minimum guilty of something. He stood back and allowed the entire “fall of man” to happen without lifting a finger to stop it. He is guilty of far more than that as we will see. He punishes everyone severely for something he could have stopped. The serpent supposedly tricked the woman, but, as we see, he was spared the “death penalty”.

Christians and Jews are taught that the LORD God punished Eve by making it painful during childbirth. The LORD God punished her with Labor pains! Evidently, the LORD God had never pooped out a bowling ball! He would have then known that natural law states that when something the size of a bowling ball comes out of an opening the size of a vagina, uh…..it’s gonna hurt! This is of course, not what the verse means, but Christians are telling us that God’s “literal” Word tells us that the LORD God was hard of hearing, seeing, and evidently has an I.Q somewhere in the range of George Bush.

The LORD God also punished her by telling her that “her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her”. Who was her “desire” supposed to for, and who was supposed to “rule over her”? For the LORD God to tell Eve that as her “punishment”, her desire would (now) be for her husband, and he would (now) rule over her. We have to assume that this was not supposed to be the case originally. Some different arrangement had to have existed for the LORD God to make this declaration of retribution. He is basically “changing” the situation by making Eve (now) subservient to her husband, and (now) her desire would be for him.

We are given some further evidence in Gen 2:23. After putting the man in a deep sleep, and performing “rib surgery”, the LORD God then takes the rib somewhere to make a woman, and brings her back to the man. We are not told how He did this “magic trick”, but, good magicians do not reveal their secrets, and the Bible is chalk-full of fantastic prestidigitators. Gen 2:23 is the dialogue from the man after the LORD God brings him the woman. It is translated in a variety of ways depending on the source, but, it stresses something interesting, so I will paraphrase. The man says, and apparently he is quite proud of the fact that “finally! Or, at last! This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, and I will call her woman, because she was taken out of man”! The key words are “now”, “finally”, or “at last”, meaning whatever existed as the arrangement or process prior to the “rib trick” was different. The LORD God changed it, and apparently it was much to the man’s liking, because the man was pretty pumped about the new arrangement. I will address the creation stories in detail in another chronicle, but, for now I will stick to the “origin” of original sin.

The LORD God also tells the woman, and the serpent that He would put “enmity between Eve and the serpent, and between her seed and his seed”. And, “she would bruise his head, and he would bruise her heel”. Again, the LORD God declares that he is going to “put enmity” between her and the serpent. Now, “enmity” is a word to describe an intense, and deep-seated hatred. It is better described as an extremely “bitter” hatred. Mortal enemy type hate. And, the LORD God placed this intense hatred between her seed (offspring), and the seed (offspring) of the serpent. So, the woman was going to “bruise the serpents head, and he was going to bruise her heel”. This is pure prophesy, and I will deal with this specifically in another chronicle.

But, again we notice that Eve does not receive the “death penalty”, which is ironic, since she was the cause of all hell breaking loose on earth. According to the standard Christian doctrine of Original Sin, the one who should have “surely died” was Eve, after all, it was all her fault, right? If it were True, it would be the world’s first and most obvious case of entrapment. I’ll explain how, but first, let’s examine the man’s punishment.

When the LORD God gets to the man, he really sticks it to him. He was punished for “listening to the woman”, and the LORD God gives him the death penalty! Now, if I were a lawyer, I would argue that the woman did not say a word to the man. The evidence is clear, and indisputable. The Bible says, and I quote, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat“. According to the evidence, it looks like she ate, and gave it to her husband, and he then ate. No words were exchanged. She did not ask him to eat, nor did she suggest to him to eat. She simply handed it to him, and he ate willingly. He chose to eat it, she did not force it down his throat, nor did she have to “talk him into it”. There is no evidence that she spoke at all. And, what is the reason the LORD God gives for punishing the man?

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

What was Adam’s “sin”? The LORD God says that he was being punished because he “hearkened to the VOICE of thy wife”. How? She handed it to him, and he ate. No conversation is recorded. I mean, if the LORD God would have said, “because she handed it to you, and you ate it, knowing that I told you not to,…….” But, the LORD God specifically mentions that Adam “hearkened unto her VOICE” The word “hearken” means “to listen attentively”, or “to give heed”. If the reason the LORD God gives for putting the hammer down on Adam was for “listening attentively, and heeding the VOICE of his wife”, I would certainly think we are entitled to know exactly what she said, since Eve is officially blamed for the act that has plagued humanity for 6000 years!

The evidence shows that Adam was not “talked into” eating anything, and he clearly did not “hearken unto her voice”. How would the LORD God know that Eve even spoke to the man? He couldn’t hear so well when Eve and the serpent actually had a conversation, but, now he charges Adam for heeding words that were never spoken.

The LORD God the proceeds to punish the man. First, he “curses” the ground because of Adam. He curses Adam with a dose of depression, as he will then eat of the ground “in sorrow”. He apparently will be eating the “herb of the field”, which included thorns and thistles. He will eat bread “by the sweat of his brow all the days of his life”, and then return to “dust”. Then, evidently he becomes “snake food”, as the serpent is now a “dust-eater”! Adam was told that if he ate of the forbidden tree, he would “surely die in the day that he ate of it”. And, he did. Just not literally “in the same 24 hour day”. Now, the real problem with the story unfolds in a major way.

Gen 3:22-24 presents some Truth that Christians/Jews do not seem to see.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

What? You mean that all the LORD God had to do was to allow the man access to the Tree of Life, and what?.....He would have "surely lived"! So, the LORD God boots the man from the garden, and places the "cherubim and the rotating flaming sword" to keep the man from being able to even come near that Tree. A tree that would have kept him from "surely dying".

LORD God did not want the man to become like "them". Who exactly is the "us"? According to the serpent, the "us" were "gods". And, so far the serpent has not lied.So, the LORD God did not want the man to become "as one of us (gods)". Somebody forgot to tell the LORD God that he was "the only God there is, and besides me there is no other". Actually, the verses say "beside", but, what difference can one little letter make? PLENTY. More on that later.

In reality, what the LORD God should have told the man was, "don't eat from that tree, for in the day you eat of it, I will SURELY SEE TO IT THAT YOU DIE"!

Let us now examine exactly what "sins" were committed in the garden.

Eve - Not much. She was never actually "commanded" her not to eat from the tree. God told her basically not to eat or even touch the tree, because God feared that if she did, she would die. She did tell a little white lie when she said that the serpent "beguiled" her. The serpent never actually "tricked" her, he kind of just talked her into it. She was punished for listening to a talking snake.

The Serpent - As far a sins go, the serpent committed zero. He did not lie to the woman, he just told her the facts. Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut, but, he did nothing that could be considered sinful. The last time I checked, telling the Truth was not a sin. What did he tell her?
1. He told her that she would not "surely die". She did not die, contrary to false teaching.
2. He told her that by eating of the tree, they would become "as gods knowing good and evil". Not a lie according to the LORD God, whose whole reasoning for booting the man was the fact that he (and she) had "become as one of them, (gods) knowing good and evil".

So, the serpent had his legs chopped off, and given a steady diet of dust (or dead men) for what? Telling the Truth. He did not "tempt" her nearly as much as the LORD God did by "causing this tree to grow" in the first place.

Adam - He did disobey a direct order. He should have listened, but, he did not deserve the "death penalty", did he? He ate willingly, he was not "talked into it" by Eve, according to the evidence. He gets punished for what? Listening to his wife, who, according to the evidence, did not say a word to him, she simply handed it to him, and he did eat. She should have spoke up and said, "whoah there LG, I did not say squat to him"! Adam also did not tell the LORD God that she said anything, he told him that she gave it to him, and he ate it.

So, now the whole "fall of man" is supposedly caused by a woman being talked into eating from a forbidden tree, by a talking snake who she says "tricked" her with the Truth. She was not actually commanded not to eat; it was more of a strong suggestion by God, who feared for her life.

After eating, Eve then supposedly talked her husband into eating the forbidden fruit , although neither Adam nor Eve mention any conversation. He was explicity commanded by the LORD God not to eat of it.

So far, the only real "sin" committed was by the man. He was commanded not to eat from that tree, and he did. Can we now blame original sin on Adam instead of Eve?

I suppose we could blame Adam, but, his "sin" pales in comparison to the sins committed by none other than the LORD God. Keep in mind that I am not just making this stuff up; it is right there in your Bible collecting dust (or dead men I guess). So, wipe off the remains of your dead relatives, and open it up to Genesis 2 and 3, and read for yourself.

These are the "sins" committed by the LORD God.
1. Lying - He lied to Adam when he told him that he would “surely die“ from eating of the tree. He did not "surely die" from eating of the tree, he died because he was prevented access to the "tree of life", which would have granted him immortality.

He also lied when he told the man he was punishing him for "hearkening unto the voice of thy wife". That would be "bearing false witness against thy neighbor". Because, there was no conversation mentioned by neither Adam nor Eve, and, according to the evidence, the LORD God could not hear so well. Or see for that matter. And, what in the world was the LORD God doing "walking in the garden"? Spirits don't "walk"; people do. There's a clue for those who have ears to hear.
2. He "tempted" them with the Tree. That tree should have never been “caused to grow”. As a parent, would you tell yours kids no snacks before dinner, and then place a plateful of cookies in front of them? I hope not. The serpent did not "tempt" Adam and Eve. He did not cause that tree to grow. The temptation was already there, the serpent just spoke the Truth about it.

Come to think of it, why did the LORD God not step in and say something when the serpent spoke to Eve. He instead allowed them to go ahead and eat. Sounds like a setup if I have ever seen one! He put those cookies right in front of their faces! Who exactly is known as the "temptor"? I don't know, could it be.........I'll let the reader answer that one.

3. Murder - Adam did not have to die, the LORD God killed him by denying him access to the Tree of Life. So, they ate from a tree that would not "surely" kill anyone, unless someone stopped them from eating from a tree of life, which was permitted originally.

4. Jealousy - The LORD God did not want the man to become "as one of them (gods)". He did not want the man to "live forever", and he saw to it.

Now, who "beguiled" who?....But, man continues to believe that all those "Names", i.e. God, LORD God, LORD, LORD thy God, Lord GOD, LORD of Hosts.....ect....are just the different names for the same entity, so, he is going to find out the Truth the "hard way" I guess.

To conclude, the doctrine of “Original Sin” is completely unscriptural, and as we have seen, was not committed by the woman. One "commandment" was broken by the man, but, the majority of "sins" were committed by the LORD God. The LORD God planted the forbidden tree, and then stood by and allowed the woman to be enticed into eating from it. He then accused the woman of talking the man into eating, when no words were exchanged. But, the most egregious act was to tell the man that he would “surely die” from eating of the tree, when all the while knowing that the man could then eat from the tree of Life, which would ensure that he would “surely live”. The LORD God did not want man to be immortal, so he took steps to ensure his death.

Those who think that the two conflicting creation stories involve the same entity, and are “complementing” versions of a single creation are terribly misinformed. What God of the entire Universe would curse his own creation? What God would create a man, and then take steps to destroy him? We are taught that God is an omnipotent, all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing God of “goodness”. What Truly “good” God even entertains the idea of evil, much less “know good and evil”? And, if God created man in “his own image”, then why would merely “knowing good and evil” be such a sin? Most people even today “know evil”, but, they do not “practice evil”.

Those who say that death came into being because a woman talked a man into eating from a "forbidden tree" are teaching a lie. Eating from this tree did not cause man to "surely die". Death came into being because man was "forbidden to eat from another tree", which would have literally saved his life. Adam was murdered, lied to, and set up by an entity who wanted nothing more than to destroy him! Who is known as the "destroyer"? Could it be..........

Remember, man was created in the "image of God", right?.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:23
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
So, why did death come into being?

Wisdom of Solomon 2:24
Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

We are taught that Satan was a "fallen angel". A "good guy turned evil". So, Satan qualifies as one who certainly "knows good and evil". He is also known as "the deceiver", "the destroyer", and "the adversary" who is the "god of this world".

In Genesis 1, we have the "Spirit of God moving upon the waters". In Genesis 2 we have, the "the LORD God walking and talking in the garden". (hint hint)

Now, read John 8, and hear what Jesus is saying. He is trying to clue you in on something. Those with ears will hear.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here is some serious "irony", and extremely prophetic.

"When the LORD God split the Adam, all hell broke loose"

"When man split the Atom, all hell broke loose"

I wonder if God is kicking Themself for taking that "day off"?

Disclaimer: I must reiterate that I did not make this stuff up. And, I am not attacking our Creator, at least not the One I know. Unlike most church doctrine, everything I have written is completely backed by evidence taken from the King James Version of the Bible. If you disagree with anything I have written, I suggest that you pick up the book and read it very carefully. Then, if you want to debate, take it up with Moses. After all, he wrote it, right?

It is a shame when Truth has to be posted under "Unorthodox Theology". Oh the irony!

peace

steve eden

Wow.....what a scrambled and twisted version of things. I would respond but I don't know where to start. Tell you what.....pick ONE silly notion from above and I'll speak to it. Then we can go on to another silly notion....one at a time though.

peace....

[mastralvarado]

Since Eve became as mortal as you and I then the serpent of course did lie. :wink:

No. The serpent was telling the truth. WHY do you think women age slower than men? Can you explain this in a single complete paragraph?:tongue:
_________
Edit to add: Ofcourse, we all know that girls grow/mature faster towards womanhood than man. Don't explain this if you think man can be immortal without G-d (the snake never said 'immortality without G-d')

[freethinker]

No. The serpent was telling the truth. WHY do you think women age slower than men? Can you explain this in a single complete paragraph?:tongue:
_________
Edit to add: Ofcourse, we all know that girls grow/mature faster towards womanhood than man. Don't explain this if you think man can be immortal without G-d (the snake never said 'immortality without G-d')

That reminds me of a joke.
"Married men live longer that unmarried men but they are a lot more willing to die."
This exposes the fallacy in the argument above: Women don't age slower, men age faster.

Freethinker, I already deleted your posts above. This is a theist only area. You are not allowed to post here. Last warning

[spitndirt]

Wow.....what a scrambled and twisted version of things. I would respond but I don't know where to start. Tell you what.....pick ONE silly notion from above and I'll speak to it. Then we can go on to another silly notion....one at a time though.

peace....

Ok....I'll pick one then. God did create that which became 'the serpent'. - '...and the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground...'. When Satan left his first estate the voice of man's flesh was awakened. SO the serpent consists of the powers of darkness working in conjunction with the flesh of man.

....and for the record the serpent IS a liar. To know good and evil and to have opened eyes IS death. To become as 'one of us' is to become like the lamb who was slain - dead. Only 'one' within 'Elohim' died - Morning Star, Son of Dawn. But thank God for His resurrection power - yippee!

peace

[spitndirt]

Ok....I'll pick one then. God did create that which became 'the serpent'. - '...and the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground...'. When Satan left his first estate the voice of man's flesh was awakened. SO the serpent consists of the powers of darkness working in conjunction with the flesh of man.

....and for the record the serpent IS a liar. To know good and evil and to have opened eyes IS death. To become as 'one of us' is to become like the lamb who was slain - dead. Only 'one' within 'Elohim' died - Morning Star, Son of Dawn. But thank God for His resurrection power - yippee!

peace

Ok....I'll move on to another one then. The reason God did not 'rescue' Eve and also Adam is HE WAS IN SABBATH. Why?...because He had finished His perfect work. God did not come out of Sabbath because to do so would have meant an '...ooops...' on God's part. God brought the transitional state of creation to a point that He prefigured....and left nothing out. A creation brought to a pre-intended point is a perfect creation. Just because this pre-intended point was not to be the end of the matter doesn't mean that the beginning of the matter was flawed in any way.

Though God may have known what would inevitably transpire it doesn't mean that He caused it. Try dividing things out while incorporating the concepts of 'direct/indirect' and 'initiated/uninitiated' causation. Evil was a potential built into creation for sure.....but one who was NOT GOD both initiated and directly caused evil to be made manifest.

Meditate along these lines: If God is all and all is God prior to the beginning how is it that IN the beginning 'another' can truly exist and NOT be God. Solve this riddle - and it is a riddle - and the truth of the creation account will become clear enough so that you can divide things out properly. You're treading on thin ice here........

My thoughts....

[Victor]

I don’t even understand what the OP thinks Original Sin is. Maybe then I can contribute.

[whacky888]

When Satan left his first estate the voice of man's flesh was awakened

And, you will provide the scriptural evidence from where? I did not even know that Satan was even mentioned in this story. And, the voice of man's flesh was awakened? So, the woman could talk, and the man could not until he munched on that fruit, then, blaming the woman for giving it to him? I see. How silly of me.

SO the serpent consists of the powers of darkness working in conjunction with the flesh of man.

This "conjuction" is actually "conjecture".

and the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground

I believe that was the LORD God. The "elevated" LORD actually provides a clue; but, evidently I am as clueless as I am silly.

To know good and evil and to have opened eyes IS death.

Again, I do not recall anywhere in this story where it says that Eve, or the serpent actually "die". Maybe your Bible says something different than the King James, and you can show me. Because man, I thought they "sewed fig leaves together" to cover their "nakedness", because, they were "ashamed".

Now, they did not actually go anywhere to get those leaves, so it is a good bet that they came from the same tree that they "ate of". The "fig tree".....hmmm. What was the only thing that Jesus ever "cursed"? Who "caused it to grow"? Another silly notion I am sure.

Jesus did say that He was the "first-born of the dead", so somebody did die. Oh yeah....it was the man. Jesus also said that He was the "bright and morning star". More importantly, He was a self-proclaimed "Son of man".

Your post is riddled with symbolic interpretation; and, contains zero sound scriptural evidence to back it up. My guess is that it is not actually an original interpretation. My post examines the story from a strict "literal" interpretation. I did not delve into any symbolism, as that would require another very long post.

I called a "spade a spade", whereas, you saw the spade as a "club". Or, more than likely someone else saw it, and you simply borrowed the interpretation in order to justify a doctrine invented by man.

Now, who is really being "silly"?

At least you do recognize that we are all walking "dead men". Congrats.

To become as 'one of us' is to become like the lamb who was slain

So, who exactly is this "lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world"? The LORD God?

God did create that which became 'the serpent'

Are you now blaming God for screwing up by making the serpent? That is rather silly, and really treading on dangerous waters. Symbolically, of course. Or not?

But thank God for His resurrection power - yippee!

Change God to Heavenly Father/Mother of the All and I agree wholeheartedly.

peace

[whacky888]

Meditate along these lines: If God is all and all is God prior to the beginning how is it that IN the beginning 'another' can truly exist and NOT be God. Solve this riddle - and it is a riddle - and the truth of the creation account will become clear enough so that you can divide things out properly. You're treading on thin ice here........

My bet is that it had something to do with that "darkness that was upon the face of the deep". And, that first "light" that God divided from this "darkness". That's probably just silly. But, God certainly did not create that "darkness", now did They?

That is really not our job, however. Man cannot even seem to figure out this whole "good and evil" thing, how is he expected to figure out things he cannot even fathom?

And no, I am not really treading on thin ice. Unless God is playing one sick joke on me; and, I happen to know that God is not really mean at all. God IS LOVE, period.

I am a huge follower of Jesus the Christ, so, I believe Him when He said,

"Seek not the law in your Scriptures for the law is life, whereas the Scripture is dead. I tell you truly Moses received not his laws from God as writing but through the living word. The law is living word for living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life to the law is the law written, for I tell you truly all living things are nearer to God than the Scripture which is without life. I tell you truly that the Scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in his works? And wherefore do you study the dead Scriptures which are from the hands of men?" (Gospel of Peace)

Dead men reading dead scriptures. Ironic?

I believe Jesus when He told Nathaniel,

"Nathaniel, never permit yourself for one moment to believe the Scripture records which tell you that the God of love directed your forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies . . . The scriptures always have, and always will reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. . . Many earnest seekers after the truth have been, and will continue to be, confused and disheartened by these doctrines of the perfection of Scripture."

Or when Jesus said,

"The Scriptures are sacred because they present the thoughts and actions of men who were searching for God . . . they contain much that is true, very much, . . . but these writings also contain much that is misrepresentative of the Father in heaven, the loving Father I have come to reveal to all the worlds."

but one who was NOT GOD both initiated and directly caused evil to be made manifest.

Truth. That "one" would be man. Do you believe in Newton's law of "cause and effect"? Religions were created, and the books were written by "elitist" men to satisfy their lust for greed and power. This was the "cause". The "effect" is for our Creator to somehow make Truth out of these stories. Do you think that our Creator did not know that man would eventually make books? What are books made from?

If the tree contains good knowledge and evil knowledge; and, the story states that the couple ate the "evil knowledge" first; which knowledge is our Creator then obligated to give man?

Meditate on that, and get back to me

peace

[37818]

God gave light its form and created darkness (Isaiah 45:7.) The "the knowledge of good and evil" was also God's (Genesis 3:22.) In man, who was part of God's good creation (Genesis 1:31.) This knowledge of good and evil in man is what gave man his fallen sinful nature. Man is a finite being - where as God is an infinite being and infinitly good. Man who is only finite - any amount of "evil" would negate man from being good (Psalm 53:2, 3; Romans 10:11, 12.) Which is what happened (Genesis 3:1-7.)

[whacky888]

God gave light its form and created darkness

That would be the LORD, the "governor amongst the nations".

(See Isaiah 44:6 and 45:11 and ask yourself why God Almighty, as you claim, would have a need for both a "maker", and a "redeemer"?)

God did not "create the darkness". If you read Genesis chapter 1 carefully, you will find that the "darkness was already upon the face of the deep". God merely said "let there be light", and then "separated the light from the darkness" that already existed.

The "the knowledge of good and evil" was also God's (Genesis 3:22.)

Nope. Not True. God was more of a "seed sower", and, only after the "earth brought forth the seeds and tree-yielding fruit seed after his (the earth's) kind". God then sowed them after "his kind". God duplicated the process, and then, and only then, "God saw it as good".

I believe it was the LORD God that caused that tree to grow from that "mist that came up out of the earth". What is significant about mist that comes up out of the earth? It is freaking hot as hell. Somewhere around 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit.

You may want to get something out of your head here. Every entity mentioned in the Old Testament is not simply another name for almighty Providence. The evidence is clear, but, you do not see it, because, you have been effectively programmed not to see it.

If you would Truly become "like a child", you would find that the mysteries are not that difficult to solve. Even the infamous "four beasts of Daniel 7" are clearly identified in Hosea. Should I give you the chapter? Nah. Hint, however. It is considered an "unlucky number". Read it carefully.

There is an old saying. "You can lead a drunkard to new, non-intoxicating wine; but, you cannot make him drink". That is not really old, I just made it up!

peace

steve eden