100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: problem | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
secondly: they ate and did not die? hmmm? why not? They didn't die? Where do they live? in mythology >>>>>>but in whatsoever """DAY""" ye eat of it<<<<<, ye shall {1} surely die. did they ""die"" that day? - NO! so it would appear our own wisdom show us it was as an emotional death, or "seperation from god" as was called even as hell, and as the valley of the "shadow of death", as was called a place of everlasting fire, just a few clicks below the feet of each, that when born ALL are "tied by gravity" to the earth, as to have to "crawl" instead of "fly" free, as the spirit of god was called as an eagle that can "fly"....... just ideas......peace i beleive your more correct D, surely it could not be talking of a physical death - no doubts about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 09/12/08 10:40 AM
|
|
in mythology >>>>>>but in whatsoever """DAY""" ye eat of it<<<<<, ye shall {1} surely die. did they ""die"" that day? - NO! The tools are at your fingertips, if you want the answer, it's as clear as day. thereof thou shalt surely (muwth) Infinitive (meaning it's happening now in a continuous manner) die. (muwth) Imperfect (meaning it's going to happen at some point) You see, the actual text doesn't say "thereof thou shalt surely die", it says "Dying you shall die". Adam and Eve started dying the moment they ate the fruit and they both eventually died. No contradiction and no problem. http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=17&version=KJV#17 EDIT: If I wasn't completely clear, let me explain this completely. Genesis 2:17 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. That's an English translation, but a more correct translation would be: Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest [you shall start dying and eventually die.] The text literally says "dying die" instead of "thereof thou shalt surely die". |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 09/12/08 10:38 AM
|
|
They weren't even trying.  Actually their trial was correct, the problem was the people who read it didn't get it the way it was suppose to come across. By the "not trying" comment actually what I meant by that was the writers of this story, Moses or whoever else might have aided him, were stealing snippets of other creation myths that pre-dated Genesis. Plagiarism in fact. They were very close. The snake was representative of Paganism and the much older belief system that was already in place and that Christianity would be in direct opposition with. The concept of a monotheistic deity such as Yahweh or Jehovah had been brought forth by the various invading tribes. The Hebrews were but one. So, in a sense, this story in the bible depicting the Tree of Knowledge (arguably one of the most critical) was a direct attempt at discrediting the much older religion of the day. not at all dear. As I have said the sacred author could have used any other allegory or figure among all the other traditions which were around the middle east and the semitic tribes of the area. The message to convey was one and just one. God almighty created the world out of nothing. The human race in an act of free will decided not to obey God's command. Again the theological principle is just one the figure could have been any other such as "God said don't drink water from that river, yet the man still did it." I would disagree with you in that case. The symbolism that was being utilized was in fact quite deliberate and specific. Otherwise why not use a chicken or a pig in the place of the serpent? It is not limited to the serpent either of course. SERPENTS The serpent of Genesis was a deity in its own right, revered in the Levant for at least 7000 years before Genesis was written. Trees and gardens were involved in these early religions also, with no associations concerning guilt, sin, disobedience, or unpleasantness. The serpent’s divine association has been insistently (and hopefully) interpreted as phallic, but the serpent was revered as female in the Near and Middle East (based on Sumerian and Babylonian texts, artifacts from Crete). (Did pre-dynastic Egyptians flee to Crete in 3000 bce with their belief in the cobra goddess?) In ancient myths, the female deity was often symbolized as a serpent or dragon. The picture of the cobra as symbol of mystic insight and wisdom is used as a hieroglyphic sign signifying goddess, and it precedes the name of any goddess in Egyptian writing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in mythology >>>>>>but in whatsoever """DAY""" ye eat of it<<<<<, ye shall {1} surely die. did they ""die"" that day? - NO! The tools are at your fingertips, if you want the answer, it's as clear as day. thereof thou shalt surely (muwth) Infinitive (meaning it's happening now in a continuous manner) die. (muwth) Imperfect (meaning it's going to happen at some point) You see, the actual text doesn't say "thereof thou shalt surely die", it says "Dying you shall die". Adam and Eve started dying the moment they ate the fruit and they both eventually died. No contradiction and no problem. http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=17&version=KJV#17 and what does """DAY""" mean here hundreds of years??? eventually? or a set period of time as when god is creating on earth? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
somehow i know "tribo" could read this last one.......smiles
the great tribo, a leader as a first of the greater truth, when all data that has and is being gathered, is churned by the great spirit into ONE STREAM, no longer peering thru all words as black and white, and the TWO perceptions are as blended, and the stream of life of infinite fountains of water of all truth spring forth, when the cistern the mind that holds all data is broken, and springs forth NEW WINE......... oh, when tribo find who he has been in days past, before he was born into this current vessel, the days filled with laughter and bliss and amazement are as incomprehensible to the mind....... so when ya wanna get drunk tribo, lol...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
secondly: they ate and did not die? hmmm? why not? They didn't die? Where do they live? Good one Johnnie. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and what does """DAY""" mean here hundreds of years??? eventually? or a set period of time as when god is creating on earth? Day. God was telling Adam that if he ate the fruit, he would start dying (the process of approaching death) that very day. In other words, his life had only one end, death. Every human life ends in death, so we are effectively dying from the moment of conception. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in mythology >>>>>>but in whatsoever """DAY""" ye eat of it<<<<<, ye shall {1} surely die. did they ""die"" that day? - NO! The tools are at your fingertips, if you want the answer, it's as clear as day. thereof thou shalt surely (muwth) Infinitive (meaning it's happening now in a continuous manner) die. (muwth) Imperfect (meaning it's going to happen at some point) You see, the actual text doesn't say "thereof thou shalt surely die", it says "Dying you shall die". Adam and Eve started dying the moment they ate the fruit and they both eventually died. No contradiction and no problem. http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=17&version=KJV#17 and what does """DAY""" mean here hundreds of years??? eventually? or a set period of time as when god is creating on earth? does not any mortal after being born march each day as unto physical death, lol..... what that has lived mortal has NOT DIED? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genisis states that A&E were not to eat the fuit of the tree, later eve says to the serpent that she/ they were commanded not to eat or "touch" the fruit [or tree?] so which is correct? what god says first or what eve says secondly? Ge 1:29 And God said, Behold I have given to you every seed-bearing herb sowing seed which is upon all the earth, and every tree which has in itself the fruit of seed that is sown, to you it shall be for food. Ge 3:2 (3:3) And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, Ge 3:3 (3:4) but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, >>>>>neither shall ye touch it<<<<<<, lest ye die. secondly: they ate and did not die? hmmm? why not? Wait a minute - are we looping back around to this again. I can see the "don't touch" question, but the "die" thing is a dead horse. Let's stop beating it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They weren't even trying. Actually their trial was correct, the problem was the people who read it didn't get it the way it was suppose to come across. By the "not trying" comment actually what I meant by that was the writers of this story, Moses or whoever else might have aided him, were stealing snippets of other creation myths that pre-dated Genesis. Plagiarism in fact. They were very close. The snake was representative of Paganism and the much older belief system that was already in place and that Christianity would be in direct opposition with. The concept of a monotheistic deity such as Yahweh or Jehovah had been brought forth by the various invading tribes. The Hebrews were but one. So, in a sense, this story in the bible depicting the Tree of Knowledge (arguably one of the most critical) was a direct attempt at discrediting the much older religion of the day. not at all dear. As I have said the sacred author could have used any other allegory or figure among all the other traditions which were around the middle east and the semitic tribes of the area. The message to convey was one and just one. God almighty created the world out of nothing. The human race in an act of free will decided not to obey God's command. Again the theological principle is just one the figure could have been any other such as "God said don't drink water from that river, yet the man still did it." I would disagree with you in that case. The symbolism that was being utilized was in fact quite deliberate and specific. Otherwise why not use a chicken or a pig in the place of the serpent? It is not limited to the serpent either of course. SERPENTS The serpent of Genesis was a deity in its own right, revered in the Levant for at least 7000 years before Genesis was written. Trees and gardens were involved in these early religions also, with no associations concerning guilt, sin, disobedience, or unpleasantness. The serpent’s divine association has been insistently (and hopefully) interpreted as phallic, but the serpent was revered as female in the Near and Middle East (based on Sumerian and Babylonian texts, artifacts from Crete). (Did pre-dynastic Egyptians flee to Crete in 3000 bce with their belief in the cobra goddess?) In ancient myths, the female deity was often symbolized as a serpent or dragon. The picture of the cobra as symbol of mystic insight and wisdom is used as a hieroglyphic sign signifying goddess, and it precedes the name of any goddess in Egyptian writing. even there you are supporting my point, my good friend. in judeo-christian culture and religion there is no way to accept a female as deity because the distorted way in which the tale of creation has been interpreted for almost 6,000 years jews, chrstians and others religions and cultures coming from the middle east have characterized the only God as a male. Therefore, the serpent which represents Lucifer, Satan, or the devil couldn't have been considered as a female deity by the sacred author (Moses) because he already considered females as inferior being incapable to reach a deity position. so again my friend I do have to disagree with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
secondly: they ate and did not die? hmmm? why not? They didn't die? Where do they live? Good one Johnnie.  Thank man. I hope you are having a good Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They weren't even trying. Actually their trial was correct, the problem was the people who read it didn't get it the way it was suppose to come across. By the "not trying" comment actually what I meant by that was the writers of this story, Moses or whoever else might have aided him, were stealing snippets of other creation myths that pre-dated Genesis. Plagiarism in fact. They were very close. The snake was representative of Paganism and the much older belief system that was already in place and that Christianity would be in direct opposition with. The concept of a monotheistic deity such as Yahweh or Jehovah had been brought forth by the various invading tribes. The Hebrews were but one. So, in a sense, this story in the bible depicting the Tree of Knowledge (arguably one of the most critical) was a direct attempt at discrediting the much older religion of the day. I'm curious - what document are you refering to that predates Genesis - I'd like to check this out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They weren't even trying. Actually their trial was correct, the problem was the people who read it didn't get it the way it was suppose to come across. By the "not trying" comment actually what I meant by that was the writers of this story, Moses or whoever else might have aided him, were stealing snippets of other creation myths that pre-dated Genesis. Plagiarism in fact. They were very close. The snake was representative of Paganism and the much older belief system that was already in place and that Christianity would be in direct opposition with. The concept of a monotheistic deity such as Yahweh or Jehovah had been brought forth by the various invading tribes. The Hebrews were but one. So, in a sense, this story in the bible depicting the Tree of Knowledge (arguably one of the most critical) was a direct attempt at discrediting the much older religion of the day. not at all dear. As I have said the sacred author could have used any other allegory or figure among all the other traditions which were around the middle east and the semitic tribes of the area. The message to convey was one and just one. God almighty created the world out of nothing. The human race in an act of free will decided not to obey God's command. Again the theological principle is just one the figure could have been any other such as "God said don't drink water from that river, yet the man still did it." I would disagree with you in that case. The symbolism that was being utilized was in fact quite deliberate and specific. Otherwise why not use a chicken or a pig in the place of the serpent? It is not limited to the serpent either of course. SERPENTS The serpent of Genesis was a deity in its own right, revered in the Levant for at least 7000 years before Genesis was written. Trees and gardens were involved in these early religions also, with no associations concerning guilt, sin, disobedience, or unpleasantness. The serpent’s divine association has been insistently (and hopefully) interpreted as phallic, but the serpent was revered as female in the Near and Middle East (based on Sumerian and Babylonian texts, artifacts from Crete). (Did pre-dynastic Egyptians flee to Crete in 3000 bce with their belief in the cobra goddess?) In ancient myths, the female deity was often symbolized as a serpent or dragon. The picture of the cobra as symbol of mystic insight and wisdom is used as a hieroglyphic sign signifying goddess, and it precedes the name of any goddess in Egyptian writing. even there you are supporting my point, my good friend. in judeo-christian culture and religion there is no way to accept a female as deity because the distorted way in which the tale of creation has been interpreted for almost 6,000 years jews, chrstians and others religions and cultures coming from the middle east have characterized the only God as a male. Therefore, the serpent which represents Lucifer, Satan, or the devil couldn't have been considered as a female deity by the sacred author (Moses) because he already considered females as inferior being incapable to reach a deity position. so again my friend I do have to disagree with you. Well of course. They were on a very deliberate mission to discredit an already established belief system. Maybe we do not disagree in that case? This was my point. The female component in established religion would have already been firmly in place. You have to ask yourself "what came first and what was the mainstream belief PRIOR to the advent of Christiandom?" You are Catholic correct? Tell me a little bit about Mary if you will....if you take away all of her Pagan fertility components. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Blessed and ever Virgin.
was a chosen woman who knew how to say YES to God's will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genesis is just so sad to me. Eve gets punished by having to have kids. Adam has to go to work. Eve and the Serpent's relationship is busted up. The Serpent has to crawl. Everybody has to wear clothes. It just breaks my heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Blessed and ever Virgin. was a chosen woman who knew how to say YES to God's will. Hmm. Interesting that you should mention that specifically. Wasn't that one of the reasons that the Hebrews did not see it fit to get on board with this concept and accept Jesus as the true Messiah? The overabundance of mistranslations? MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation. A. VIRGIN BIRTH The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Blessed and ever Virgin. was a chosen woman who knew how to say YES to God's will. Hmm. Interesting that you should mention that specifically. Wasn't that one of the reasons that the Hebrews did not see it fit to get on board with this concept and accept Jesus as the true Messiah? The overabundance of mistranslations? wrong dear. the hebrews didn't accept my Lord Jesus Christ as the Mesiah because they misinterpreted the prophets. The Hebrews were waiting a Mesiah Warrior King who was going to set them free from the oppression of Rome. Rebuild the kingdom of Jerusalem. And what they got a man who asked to give the other cheak. To walk an extra mile with whom makes you walk one. That is the reason why the Hebrews didn't accept my Lord as the Messiah. Not your assertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
somehow i know "tribo" could read this last one.......smiles the great tribo, a leader as a first of the greater truth, when all data that has and is being gathered, is churned by the great spirit into ONE STREAM, no longer peering thru all words as black and white, and the TWO perceptions are as blended, and the stream of life of infinite fountains of water of all truth spring forth, when the cistern the mind that holds all data is broken, and springs forth NEW WINE......... oh, when tribo find who he has been in days past, before he was born into this current vessel, the days filled with laughter and bliss and amazement are as incomprehensible to the mind....... so when ya wanna get drunk tribo, lol...... if i was a drinker i'd take you up on that my friend 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shalom Tribo
Once again i just read the beginning. I just wanted to comment on you saying they did not die. Satan told them they would not but your answer is at the end of the book Shalom...Miles Rev 22:1-3 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, bright as crystal, going forth out of the throne of Yahweh and of the Lamb: 2 in the midst of its broad place, and of the river on this side and on that, [is] a tree of life, yielding twelve fruits, in each several month rendering its fruits, and the leaves of the tree [are] for the service of the nations; 3 and any curse there shall not be any more, and the throne of Yahweh and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him, YLT V3 Is the curse we have been under ever since. We do die. Adam was not meant to die or eve. Disobedience cause a great many things to happen at the beginning that are restored at the end to those who are willingly obedient to thier Father |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and what does """DAY""" mean here hundreds of years??? eventually? or a set period of time as when god is creating on earth? Day. God was telling Adam that if he ate the fruit, he would start dying (the process of approaching death) that very day. In other words, his life had only one end, death. Every human life ends in death, so we are effectively dying from the moment of conception. so your then saying, the word day in this case is different from the word day used in the 6 "days" of creation in its meaning of 1 24 hr. day ""yowm"" means one thing 6 times [24 hrs] but here the meaning is changed to mean 'eventually' explain this please, how is that possible? |
|
|
|
|
