|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Forbidden
Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
The Hebrew word Nachash means to hiss. It is used of sorcerers for their tendency to hiss or mutter. Nachash, a word that only differs from the first in the vowel points (added 900 AD and not considered inspired) means serpent. Saraph, for fiery or poisonous, means a snake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Yes, some question what people say that the writers of the Bible were saying. When I claim that the Garden was set at the time and location of the domestication of wheat, and was aimed at worshipers of the Mother Goddess, I am going against traditional interpretations. The whole Bible presents events as being in a historical setting, whether Abraham, Moses, David, or Jesus. Theological teaching is presented in that setting.
Gen 2:24 does teach us that one point of the story is Marriage. Other places amplify on on it saying this means it is a covenant before God. Paul's writing is considered part of the Bible. If I wanted to say Torah or the Prophets, I would have stated that. I basically agree with your last statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
This is why I am insisting that the Bible is not talking about a talking snake. It is talking about the Ancient Serpent, Satan. Satan uses various religions and in this case it seems that he is using the Worship of the mother Goddess. The Oracle at Delphi has the clearest picture of women priestesses seeking possession by Python, the Serpent to get a message. Mesopotamian writing has much to say about women priestesses of a mother Goddess being required to be temple prostitutes, what the Greeks called the Heirodule (the sacred wife.) This is what the Bible calls wickedness, and shows us why God promoted marriage in Gen 2:24. The word is exactly the same Hebrew word as the one translated Evil (tree of good and evil.) The Golden Bough discusses the mother Goddess worship, the dressing in vegetable matter (like fig leaves) and the sacrificing of Humans, especially in times before written history. This does not change what you are saying in any way, it just enriches understanding the passage. It also limits interpretations of passages so we avoid saying that the Bible was talking about talking snakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Sorry, I was out of town for a week. You made a good point. I had read "the first Adam .... The last Adam" As you pointed out, it says, "the first man (anthropos), Adam." I was wrong at that point. The idea that there were other men before Adam was speculation, and the idea conflicts with the verse above. I still stand by my statement that you quoted. That part sticks quite closely to the texts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
The woman did talk to the serpent. The serpent was a god in this other religion, and according to Revelation, Satan. We can't know the exact version of this worship in the region around the Garden that they practiced from the time of Adam to Noah, but we can look at the versions that were known to be practiced. One interesting fact is that there were these mother goddess figurines commonly found all over the middle east. Archaeologists have remarked that there were few or none found in the area around Mt Karacadag. We would expect exactly that if God used the events at the Garden of Eden to teach against mother goddess worship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Notice that I said the time from Adam to Noah. I expect that Seth's descendants that remained true did not worship this religion. Cain, by killing his brother in the field looks like he worshiped in this manner. I expect that his descendants did also. The lack of these figurines in the region around Eden was during this same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Yes, my speculation seems implicit unless you believe in the young earth creationist ideas. I am studying these implications, but I still stick with the statement about the time and location of the Garden. No, the statement about the domesticated plants does not create problems. Before mankind domesticated plants, the plants did not need mankind. After domestication, those plants needed man to reproduce. Many scientists state that the annual plants like wheat could have been domesticated in one man's lifetime. Thus Adam could have started with no domesticated plants and at the end of his life be growing domesticated plants. See Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and steel to see what he says about domesticating wheat. He even states how the region surrounding where I have stated the Garden of Eden existed was unusually blessed with domesticatable plants and animals, truly a garden region, unlike any where else on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
You said: It IS clearly implicit. Your whole idea is to try to harmonise scientific views with your interpretation of the Bible (itself a risky strategy because the scientific conclusions are uncertain, and your preferred version could easily turn out to be wrong). If you have to throw out all the evidence of earlier human existence then what is the point of harmonization ?
First, I analyzed the story of the Garden. It lead me to the conclusions that I stated. I then looked at the possible implications of the conclusion. So far I have only seen two possibilities, the Young Earth Creationist conclusion and the Biblical acceptance of evolution. I tried one way of harmonizing the Bible with evolution, but one man pointed out a flaw in my analysis. I am still studying the scriptures. I would love to be able to conclude that evolution is Biblical but I refuse to ignore facts. Then you said: Which means that you have to place Genesis 2:5 AFTER domestication. That's the problem. No, I place Gen 2:5 at the point just prior to domestication. Scientists also agree, a massive drought, the Younger Dryas hit and then toward the end or immediately after, wheat was domesticated, right at Mt Karacadag. Very shortly after, the farming package was created and farming exploded out of the fertile crescent. Guns, Germs and Steel by Diamond is a great initial source of info. He even documents how the area was a "garden" blessed above any other place in the world. I do agree, that after initial domestication, further improvements occurred. Some evidences that scientists use as proof positive that domestication occurred such as domestic seeds outside the wild range, and larger seed size are actually later developments. I am not talking about these longer term developments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
This site discusses a variety of steps in domestication. They mention a very rapid predomestication (with no specificclaim as to the langth of time. Notice the gap to the second curve, a slightly slower event, of full domestication. The whole transition is listed as several hundred years. Again, look at Jared Diamond's book. Oak and Almond both had the same problem, poison in the seeds. Oak was never domesticated because too many genes had to change. Almonds just needed one genetic change. All a farmer had to do was find a wild almond with non-poisonous nuts and plant an orchard of them. Voila, instant domestication. Wheat just needed two genetic changes for full domestication. Even Darwin commented on the dramatic changes one dedicated man could develop in a plant or animal in his lifetime. Isn't that Irony? a Christian using Darwin to prove his point!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
No, no problems. The Bible says there were none, and science says there were none. Both say the wild precursors existed at that time. By Gen 4:2 and 4:12, activity associated with the domestication process (but not the harvesting process previously used) was being engaged in. Some steps toward domestication, and possibly full domestication had been achieved. Now there were plants of the field. Have you read the suggested readings on the domestication process? It fits very well. Have you read my website on the Garden?
gardenofeden It goes into a lot more detail than one can cover here, and is still abbreviated. Unlike all the other proposed locations, this fits the clues thoroughly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
The Bible uses the terms wild beasts, beasts of the earth, and beasts of the field. It clearly means different things by the terms. It never says that the plants of the field were in seed form and waiting to germinate. That is an interpretation. Nowhere in Gen 1 does it use the term plants of the field. It uses vegetation, plants yielding seeds, fruit trees, and green plants. These are all listed as existing before Adam and Eve. Only plants of the field were listed as having come into being after Adam and Eve, and only clearly at the curse and even that in a future tense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Yes, and in Ps 104:19, the sun knows the place of its setting and in 104:22, the sun rises. The clear implication is that the sun orbits the earth as many maintained years ago. I look at all possible interpretations. Both interpretations are possible in the passage. Which one fits the rest of scripture? Which one fits science? I truly believe that the earth orbits the sun despite the clear implication of scripture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
One of my arguments that there were humans before Adam was flawed. I admitted that argument didn't fly. That doesn't mean that the Bible says there were no humans before Adam. The word generations in Gen 2:4 still argues that there were humans before Adam. I am still researching that part of the argument. As for plants, if there were no plants before Adam, not only does that contradict science, but it contradicts Gen 1. To say that the Bible says that Adam and other humans couldn't have bred plants of the field out of wild plants is to argue that the Bible says people today can't breed animals and plants to generate new breeds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
I absolutely agree about Cain's wife.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024