The Serpent told the truth, God lied. (Page 3)

ghostgeek: Surely, it would be better to see the Bible as a record of religious evolution. First there is the echo of an older polytheism which blends into Judaic monotheism and finally flowers into Christianity. The creation story has too many elements that chime with late bronze age Near Eastern polytheism to suggest it has any connection to later Christian dogma. It is a relic from a different world, more akin to the Greek Myths than anything we believe today.

moofy: Christianity has more roots in Greek Myths. Deities and half-Deities were very popular.

Judaism however; has been more closely connected to Ur and the Code of Ur-Nammu, if you're looking for serious research on the subject.

TheDoctor394: But the crucial way of looking at the Bible is as one whole account of God's work in mankind. From Genesis to Revelation, it tells us of God's creation of the world, including humanity, man's fall from grace, and God's redemptive plan, choosing the Jews as His people, and through them, bringing Jesus Christ into the world to die for all people, being resurrected and then ascending to Heaven, eventually returning to have ultimate victory over Satan.

That is the Biblical message, from beginning to end, and careful study shows that, while there are certainly some puzzling aspects throughout, the overall arch is clear. This is what the Bible is all about.

orkanen: Doc, if you consider the present Torah and Bible to be the whole account of a god's work in mankind, you would have to disregard all the discrepancies within them, as well as the fact that it only represents a minor fraction of mankind, both then and now. Why don't you also consider later research into the matter, displaying several other gods, including YHVH's wife?

TheDoctor394: Um... His wife?

orkanen: His wife Asherah. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

moofy: Technically it's YHVH (no W in the Hebrew alphabet, although I understand how people like to use Phoenician bases to try to translate as such).

The Shechinah is actually just the feminine term for God, an attribute if you will. In Hebrew God's names reflect attributes. It's not a "separate" Deity.

God isn't any more male/female than a coffee bench in Jewish theology.

chayim: God was always one concept = 1 God, and adam and eve knew it, and you will never find anything in the torah and all prophesy books only 1 God, and nothing else, anything else was made evil by evil people denying the truth what was known by the beginning of the creation, and the first commandment was that there is only 1 God and nothing else

What it says; "lets" make human in "our" image, it says "that only God said it", and it means human shal be spiritually

It says clear that God said; all gods worship except him "are false"

chayim: asheroh אשרה was a pagan of female sexuality adultery sin, 

chayim: There is only 1 name of god = יהוה, the letters in english = Yhvh, the pronounce = Yehoivue, Yehoivue means his existence, אל el, is a title meaning his power myth, when God said to moses that he did not knowledge himself to abraham isaac and jacob with his name = yhvh יהוה, means that they did not knowledge God himself, only his myth, but to moses he knowledged his existence

chayim: God said adam will die when he will eat from the evil tree, but he begged improvement and God said that it will be according to his day, 1,000 years, and adam died 70 years before his 1,000 year

chayim: The tree of knowledge of evil means = "lust", God forbided them to fall in lust, and this means that when they fell in lust they knowledged their nakedness, and tree of life means = God's holy spirit, and the garden was full of holy spirits, but when they fell in lust, they were unable to remain in the holy spirit and simply not to live in God's spirit = the tree of life, and thats why they were punished to suffering and death to wipe out the knowledge of lust, and the female pagan = asheroh was the knowledge of lust

ghostgeek: I thought it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Chayi. You seem to be concentrating on the naughty bit. Where did the good bit go? Mmmm... thinking about this tree, why did God plant it in the garden at all? There must have been a reason. This is what I think, God planted it for Himself. You'll notice that God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. In other words Adam was created to be God's gardener. There was no restriction on Adam eating from the Tree of Life, he could munch all he liked. Why do you think that was? Maybe Adam was created mortal so that,unless he ate from the Tree of Life, he would eventually die. God wouldn't want His gardener dropping dead from old age, would He? This though raises an interesting question about God. Is He also mortal? It would explain why God planted the Tree of Life. For Himself, to stay young. Yes, true, it's just speculation but if I remember right other myths, those of the Greeks and the Vikings, also had mortal gods.

orkanen: Do I get extra points for posting this guy, ghostgeek?

ghostgeek: Sure do Orkanen. Haven't seen him in a long time but he's still good. He makes some good points as well.

chayim: God is not like a man that needs to gain something from out of him, Everything is from God, he created everything, the tree of life was created from his life, and the tree of knowledge good and evil was also created from him, everything what is in the creation comes from the creator, and he created the tree of life means that the power of life is from him, that he is the life itself

God did not need a gardener, God created everything so he needs a gardener ?? the thing of the garden meant physically and spiritually, and the way God put adam was that he should deserve to God's all glory and holy spirits by gardening means; doing good, and by watching it meaning; not do bad, that good grows the holy glory and spirit, and bad ruines it and kills it

The reason for putting both trees in the garden is; that all trees physically and spiritually were glory and holy spirits in God's wisdom and existence, and if adam would of listen to God that day not to eat from the tree of knowledge good and evil in the 6th day that he was created, then in the sevent day = in shabas, he would eaten the tree of life, meaning; he would desreve and raise in God's holy spirit and glory totally, and than he would be above evil, and then he would eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and would know everything, but he would not fall in the evil spirit

orkanen: Your claims still stand or fall on whether you can document that your god exists or not, chayi. So far, they have all fallen.

ghostgeek: Chayi, have you ever done any gardening? If you've ever been near a garden you'll realise that nature has to be kept in check, otherwise it's chaos. Most of us have to do our own gardening but a lucky few can afford to hire a gardener. Just because God created the Garden of Eden doesn't mean He didn't need someone to tend it. Quite the contrary. So no, God created Adam to be His gardener, just as the story says. Of course, this only applies if you believe the tale as told in Genesis. There's no reason why you should, it's just a story in a book after all, but if you don't, please stop lecturing us about the truth of the Torah.

TheDoctor394: There are been endless religious writings throughout history, whether they be for Jews or other groups. It is fair to read them and consider them. Are they true? Do they make sense? Are they consistent with what we read the other day? We can take these into account, accept some, dismiss others, etc.

We have all come to various conclusions, and I can only speak for myself and the conclusions I have come to.

Over many years of Biblical study, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God. I have explained some of this on these message boards. While I don’t understand all that the Bible says, it makes the most sense to me and it comes together in a convincing fashion – as has been said by some, it has the “ring of truth” about it. Many would disagree, of course, but that is my view.

I then take into account 2 Timothy 3:16,17, which states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
That was originally referring to the Old Testament scriptures, not the New, since the New Testament was still being written at the time, but since the NT has since been accepted as equal to the Old, then it is fair to now apply the passage to both.

Therefore, my view is that what we need to know about God is in the Bible. While other books can help us in understanding the Bible better (whether it be preaching, or historical/cultural references), the Bible itself is my sole focus when it comes to understand who God is and what He does. So if I read something that simply clashes with the Bible, then I have to come to the conclusion that it is incorrect.

Naturally, this would be viewed as “narrow minded” by some. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Do we just accept everything we see? Should all religious documents be accepted as truth? In reference to, for example, God having a wife, there is simply nothing even remotely Biblical about that. While yes, the Bible does mention the name of other gods, they are always treated as false (not real), and certainly having no relationship with the Creator God that the Bible presents.

I continue to study and try and learn more about religions in its various forms, as well as the history of the Christian church, its Judaistic roots and suchlike. And I am certainly more ready to take an interest in extra-Biblical writings than I was many years ago. But I can only speak from my point of view at this time, and this is where I stand on this particular topic.

ghostgeek: We all have a point of view Doctor, and as you say, we can only speak for ourself. I personally have little faith in God so it is easy for me to read the creation story as just that, a story. As such I find it fascinating, reading into it all manner of things that were probably never conceived of by its composer. That said, my research to date makes me think that the traditional Christian interpretation of the story may be mistaken. You, no doubt, will shake your head in sorrow that I cannot see the truth. That's the beauty of religion. It gives one plenty to argue over.

TheDoctor394: Oh yes. :-) It certainly keeps us busy.
And learning.

orkanen: Do I deduct correctly from your former post, Doctor, that you view the present version of the Bible as how it was written to begin with?

TheDoctor394: :-) When we say "present version", of course, we need to remember there are many (too many) translations of the Bible available.

The ones I'm familiar with are certainly good, and are all reliable in regards to the essential Christian message. Because there are so many old Biblical manuscripts in the original languages available today, it is easy for scholars to write very, very accurate translations, and I believe that is what we have.

Naturally, they're not exactly the same, since I'm talking about English versions, and the original scriptures were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. But, as much as we could expect within the scope of translating, I believe most of the English (I can't speak for other languages) Bible translations we have today are very close to the original autographs.