| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"?o?O??o???f" |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2004 03:26:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Genesis 2 is irrelative to Genesis 1 |
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
"Werner Kurator" <werner@searching-for.peace> 级糶秎ン
news:slrncmnesb.14h.werner@not_known_to.me...
㈠oⅦO⑤ⅦoⅣf in this very newsgroup alt.religion.christian used this
<416b12ba@post.newsfeeds.com> message-id on 2004-10-11
In the garden of eden God said something CONTRADICTORY TO what he said
on
the 6th day, the last day of creation, when he prohibited humans from
eating
fruit of the tree of knowledge.
But when God had created humans on the 6th day, he told the humans that
they
could eat ALL kinds of fruit; and God apparently felt that he HAD
COMPLETED
WHAT HE SHOULD DO and SAY so he rested on the 7th day.
This proves that the story of the garden of eden must have taken place
after
the 7th day, or God would not say on the 6th day that humans could eat
ALL
KINDS of fruit.
Only if one assumes that the fruit is/was _literal_ :-)
If the fruit and the tree on which it grew were symbols for something
else......
Werner Kurator
If so, the WHOLE chapter 2, 3 should be taken figuratively, and not just the
tree of knowledge !
therefore you people are contradicting yourselves
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Kurator" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis 2 is irrelative to Genesis 1 |
12 Oct 2004 04:26:24 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion.christian gesetzt.]
?o?O??o???f in this very newsgroup alt.religion.christian used this
<416c3d05@post.newsfeeds.com> message-id on 2004-10-12
to announce the following statement:
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
"Werner Kurator" <werner@searching-for.peace> 级糶秎ン
news:slrncmnesb.14h.werner@not_known_to.me...
㈠oⅦO⑤ⅦoⅣf in this very newsgroup alt.religion.christian used this
<416b12ba@post.newsfeeds.com> message-id on 2004-10-11
In the garden of eden God said something CONTRADICTORY TO what he said
on
the 6th day, the last day of creation, when he prohibited humans from
eating
fruit of the tree of knowledge.
But when God had created humans on the 6th day, he told the humans that
they
could eat ALL kinds of fruit; and God apparently felt that he HAD
COMPLETED
WHAT HE SHOULD DO and SAY so he rested on the 7th day.
This proves that the story of the garden of eden must have taken place
after
the 7th day, or God would not say on the 6th day that humans could eat
ALL
KINDS of fruit.
Only if one assumes that the fruit is/was _literal_ :-)
If the fruit and the tree on which it grew were symbols for something
else......
Werner Kurator
If so, the WHOLE chapter 2, 3 should be taken figuratively, and not just the
tree of knowledge !
therefore you people are contradicting yourselves
whom do you mean by _you_ _people_?
And what have _I_ written that contradicts my _own_ words?
I am well aware that many Christians think that the story is to be
taken literal, so in this case my pov does not go well with _fundies_
so be it. Also I need to point out that I do not adhere to the
creationist idea, furthermore the bible might contain some errors, as
you point out. But from closer reading of Genesis 2:15-16 I get the
impression that God gave the commandment to Adam alone on the sixth
day. God does not contradict himself either (in my view) because the
commandment not to eat the fruit, means not a literal fruit.
Genesis 2
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden
to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely eat: 17 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. 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should
be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
I think Genesis 2 just repeats the creation story of Genesis 1 and
adds a few details to it, like the creation of Eve, the naming of the
animals, sure one could get the _impression_ that right after God created
the various animals, He brought them to Adam, but this could not be correct,
since the evolution process took much longer then Adam could have ever
lived alone. How tame the animals were back then I really don't know :-)
I have not given a full explanation because I wanted to hear from
others first, before I type in a long response, so in short:
Adam and Eve were two real people;
The tree of life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the fruit
and the serpent are symbols.
the garden of eden means the sinless world, and not just some small location.
I could go into more details if the need arises, unfortunately the
next couple of days I will not be able to respond.
So I'll check back :-)
Werner Kurator
Since this is a Newsgroup: please don't Cc me,
as I do read it daily faithfully :-)
--
Cabal Unit VII spake:
" Whatsoever a kook soweth on Usenet, that also shall
he reap...for *fucking* ever."
.
|
|
|
| User: "?o?O??o???f" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis 2 is irrelative to Genesis 1 |
12 Oct 2004 05:43:22 PM |
|
|
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
"Werner Kurator" <werner@searching-for.peace> 级糶秎ン
news:slrncmoj7c.67m.werner@not_known_to.me...
["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion.christian gesetzt.]
?o?O??o???f in this very newsgroup alt.religion.christian used this
<416c3d05@post.newsfeeds.com> message-id on 2004-10-12
to announce the following statement:
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
"Werner Kurator" <werner@searching-for.peace> 级糶秎ン
news:slrncmnesb.14h.werner@not_known_to.me...
㈠oⅦO⑤ⅦoⅣf in this very newsgroup alt.religion.christian used
this
<416b12ba@post.newsfeeds.com> message-id on 2004-10-11
In the garden of eden God said something CONTRADICTORY TO what he
said
on
the 6th day, the last day of creation, when he prohibited humans from
eating
fruit of the tree of knowledge.
But when God had created humans on the 6th day, he told the humans
that
they
could eat ALL kinds of fruit; and God apparently felt that he HAD
COMPLETED
WHAT HE SHOULD DO and SAY so he rested on the 7th day.
This proves that the story of the garden of eden must have taken
place
after
the 7th day, or God would not say on the 6th day that humans could
eat
ALL
KINDS of fruit.
Only if one assumes that the fruit is/was _literal_ :-)
If the fruit and the tree on which it grew were symbols for something
else......
Werner Kurator
If so, the WHOLE chapter 2, 3 should be taken figuratively, and not just
the
tree of knowledge !
therefore you people are contradicting yourselves
whom do you mean by _you_ _people_?
And what have _I_ written that contradicts my _own_ words?
I am well aware that many Christians think that the story is to be
taken literal, so in this case my pov does not go well with _fundies_
so be it. Also I need to point out that I do not adhere to the
creationist idea, furthermore the bible might contain some errors, as
you point out. But from closer reading of Genesis 2:15-16 I get the
impression that God gave the commandment to Adam alone on the sixth
day. God does not contradict himself either (in my view) because the
commandment not to eat the fruit, means not a literal fruit.
actually I tried to say that if the tree of knowledge should be seen as a
symbol,
then why you never think that adam, eve, serpent and even GOD should also
been
seen as symbols?
what makes you to have this kind of "discrimination" - thinking that this
should be a symbol and that should not be a symbol?
This kind of discriminating thinking pattern is a "contraction' in your
reasoning.
Genesis 2
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden
to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the
garden
thou mayest freely eat: 17 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. 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should
be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
I think Genesis 2 just repeats the creation story of Genesis 1 and
adds a few details to it, like the creation of Eve, the naming of the
animals, sure one could get the _impression_ that right after God created
the various animals, He brought them to Adam, but this could not be
correct,
since the evolution process took much longer then Adam could have ever
lived alone. How tame the animals were back then I really don't know :-)
I have not given a full explanation because I wanted to hear from
others first, before I type in a long response, so in short:
Adam and Eve were two real people;
The tree of life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the fruit
and the serpent are symbols.
the garden of eden means the sinless world, and not just some small
location.
I could go into more details if the need arises, unfortunately the
next couple of days I will not be able to respond.
So I'll check back :-)
Werner Kurator
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "?o?O??o???f" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis 2 is irrelative to Genesis 1 |
15 Oct 2004 11:10:30 PM |
|
|
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
"Werner Kurator" <werner@searching-for.peace> 级糶秎ン
news:slrncn04fv.188.werner@not_known_to.me...
Now if Adam and Eve as well as God are symbols then what do they stand
for? What do they symbolize? And how would this effect us human
beings?
what makes you to have this kind of "discrimination" - thinking that
this
should be a symbol and that should not be a symbol?
Again why should Adam, Eve and God be symbols?
your attachment to the thought that human beings should be affected by the
stories told in the Bible is of no logic.
the second illogic in your thinking is your belief in something obviously
came from the hands of the humans, who are dipicted according to the
interpretation by you the creationists to be SINNERS and fallible creatures.
Therefore, who told you that the Bible was from GOD?
The sinners and the fallible people DID.
Everything you believe in and has been told came from the Sinners, the
fallible human beings.
therefore, the "belief" itself is of no credibility because it is directly
from the interpretation of fallible humans.
what the GENESIS tries to unveil is one thing, but it becomes another thing
after being interpreted by fallible humans.
Therefore, the right thing to do is believe in NOTHING so you will be away
from being misled.
What if I tell you that the word GOD appears in the whole Bible represents
the "NATURE OF ONE'S SELF", you believe or not believe?
You cannot accept this idea only because it is BEYOND your intelligence; so
in the end you will still have to turn to something that is within your
comprehension, comprehensible to you but not necessarily true to the FACT.
For me Adam and Eve were _real_ people, God is real too (again to
_me_) I don't think that God would put a tree there into the garden
that could _literally_ kill his children, and as they did not die, on
the day they ate of the fruit, the fruit could not be a literal fruit.
Therefor the tree and its _fruits_ had to be symbols.
I am aware that some christian think a day is 1000 years in the eyes
of God, and Adam lived until 900 some years.
I believe the _death_ caused in the Garden was a death, that did not
mean the death of our physical body, because
Jesus spoke of two kinds of deaths:
you have convienced yourself that god did not try to kill humans physical,
and that a day is 1000 years in the eyes of God so that ADam actually died
the same day....etc
you have been feeding yourself all kinds of excuses to help you ease out the
contradictions and fallacies between the 2 creation stories.
Because no more other DETAILS were given in Genesis 1, 2, 3 than the
original bare plain text.
Anything that is not said in the text is considered made-ups by your
imagination, which has been created to convince and console yourself.
therefore your belief is based on sheer ASSUMPTIONS and IMAGINATION instead
of on factualities -
Luke 9 59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord,
suffer me first to go and bury my father.
60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead:
but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
This kind of discriminating thinking pattern is a "contraction' in your
reasoning.
Sorry since English is my second language, I don't follow you here :-/
Werner Kurator
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Kurator" |
|
| Title: Re: Genesis 2 is irrelative to Genesis 1 |
16 Oct 2004 12:52:46 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion.christian gesetzt.]
?o?O??o???f in this very newsgroup alt.religion.christian used this
<41709e5a@post.newsfeeds.com> message-id on 2004-10-16
to announce the following statement:
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
"Werner Kurator" <werner@searching-for.peace> 级糶秎ン
news:slrncn04fv.188.werner@not_known_to.me...
Now if Adam and Eve as well as God are symbols then what do they stand
for? What do they symbolize? And how would this effect us human
beings?
what makes you to have this kind of "discrimination" - thinking that
this
should be a symbol and that should not be a symbol?
Again why should Adam, Eve and God be symbols?
your attachment to the thought that human beings should be affected by the
stories told in the Bible is of no logic.
Would it be more helpful for me if I adhered to Buddhism for example?
the second illogic in your thinking is your belief in something obviously
came from the hands of the humans, who are dipicted according to the
who created the __theory_ of evolution were this not also humans?
interpretation by you the creationists to be SINNERS and fallible creatures.
Would you please define creationist? As I don't believe God created
the Universe in _six_ literal days. Do you regard any adherent of any
religion (islam, Buddhism, Jews, which contains a "creation" story
pointing to a higher being) as creationist?
Therefore, who told you that the Bible was from GOD?
The sinners and the fallible people DID.
Everything you believe in and has been told came from the Sinners, the
fallible human beings.
Correct,
So are you saying the God could not _reveal_ himself and that humans
would _write_ those revelations?
therefore, the "belief" itself is of no credibility because it is directly
from the interpretation of fallible humans.
Does this also apply to the theory of evolution?
what the GENESIS tries to unveil is one thing, but it becomes another thing
after being interpreted by fallible humans.
Therefore, the right thing to do is believe in NOTHING so you will be away
from being misled.
Well if there is _NO_ God and _no_ _afterlife_ what consequences would
it have if my religious believes are wrong? _Only_ if there was a
_afterlife_ then it would matter if one believes in a God and the
promised eternal life.
What if I tell you that the word GOD appears in the whole Bible represents
the "NATURE OF ONE'S SELF", you believe or not believe?
You cannot accept this idea only because it is BEYOND your intelligence; so
in the end you will still have to turn to something that is within your
comprehension, comprehensible to you but not necessarily true to the FACT.
For me Adam and Eve were _real_ people, God is real too (again to
_me_) I don't think that God would put a tree there into the garden
that could _literally_ kill his children, and as they did not die, on
the day they ate of the fruit, the fruit could not be a literal fruit.
Therefor the tree and its _fruits_ had to be symbols.
I am aware that some christian think a day is 1000 years in the eyes
of God, and Adam lived until 900 some years.
I believe the _death_ caused in the Garden was a death, that did not
mean the death of our physical body, because
Jesus spoke of two kinds of deaths:
you have convienced yourself that god did not try to kill humans physical,
I think the physical death was not the death caused by Adam trespass.
So far I think only the Jehovah Witnesses are the only Christians who
think that we humans were to live a eternal life in the _physical_
body.
I believe that human beings are eternal beings and after we shed our
physical body (like worn out clothes is being discarded) and live
eternally in the the eternal realm.
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
and that a day is 1000 years in the eyes of God so that ADam actually died
the same day....etc
you have been feeding yourself all kinds of excuses to help you ease out the
contradictions and fallacies between the 2 creation stories.
I don't see both accounts as contradiction, I know that Genesis 1
seems to say that God created both Adam and Eve at the same _time_
and then Genesis 2 says that Eve was created later after Adam.
Well I just _do_ _not_ take everything literally. Also I know that the
Bible contains certain errors. Does this negate the _existence_ of God
with whom I have a _spiritual_ relationship trough prayer, no it does
not. To me the Bible (like many other religious books in the world) is
not the _infallible_ truth but rather a text-book teaching certain
aspects of truth. I for one would not look in the Bible if I were
searching for _scientific_ truth.
Even if the story of Adam and Eve had _two_ sources, and both were put
together, so what? The main point is:
God created the universe and Adam and Eve. So you found some error
there, this has not much bearings for me, as I accept the fact the
Bible contains errors. (Ever compared the same Bible-verse in different
Bibles, like NIV, KJV etc.etc. then you will see some things are
translated differently)
Matthew 13:31 :: New Living Translation (NLT)
Illustration of the Mustard Seed
31Here is another illustration Jesus used: "The Kingdom of Heaven is
like a mustard seed planted in a field.
(NIV)
31He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a
mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.
(KJV)
31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed
in his field:
Matthew 13:31 :: Amplified Bible (AMP)
31Another story by way of comparison He set forth before them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man
took and sowed in his field.
You see different words are used, but the meaning remains the same,
that Jesus used symbolic speech to make a point.
Because no more other DETAILS were given in Genesis 1, 2, 3 than the
original bare plain text.
Anything that is not said in the text is considered made-ups by your
imagination, which has been created to convince and console yourself.
So what are you trying to say, that I don't have the liberty to
give those Bibles-tories a interpretation? If I had _not_ that liberty,
then I would have tossed the Bible a long time ago :-)
Why should I adhere to a literal text? Because you want me to?
Don't get me wrong just because I say something might be symbolical,
this does not mean that it has not relevance, on the contrary,
especially with the account how sin entered the world this would be
very important.
Jesus (if one believes him) also spoke in parables:
Just one example:
Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables,
saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
Console myself LOL, if I die and there is _no_ afterlife, I have
nothing lost, since I will _cease_ to exist and never know, but if God
exists and I have prepared myself for the next life, I only can gain.
therefore your belief is based on sheer ASSUMPTIONS and IMAGINATION instead
of on factualities -
You don't even know what I believe because I have not even explained
how I _understand_ Genesis 1&2 (the fall of man) except for the fact that
Adam and Eve a real people and that both trees in the garden are
symbols.
Do you then take _everything_ in the Genesis account as fact?
Werner Kurator
Since this is a Newsgroup: please don't Cc me,
as I do read it daily faithfully :-)
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your *****." - John Novak, rasfwrj
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
