I believe it is both, a parable and a history. I will do some research and share more - though I have also committed to research and sharing in another thread as well. So, please be patient with me.
"As long as man is aware of opposites, he cannot be with God, because god is aware of the whole. It is only by becoming aware of the whole, seeing that all things are the same, that we can be with God and eat from the tree of life. That is the message that is lost."
I guess it depends on what is meant by "all things are the same". Because I think opposites do exist and that God created them. Likewise I think there is good and there is evil.
For example - how can the murder of an innocent person be seen as "part of the same"? I see that line of thinking as full of potential dangers. It is the same type of thinking that allowed leaders in TWI to committ adultery - "all things are lawful" if you are spiritual enough.
Beyond that, I agree there are parables within Genesis, as well as the rest of the Bible. Layers upon layers of learning and understanding there.
I believe along the same lines as Abigail. Some of it is metaphor and some quite literal.
For example, when it says God created the heavens and earth, I take that literally. When it refers to the tree of life, I see that as figurative.
I see Genesis as much more than a parable, although I agree it has some deep figurative and symbolic language.
I agree with Mr. Campbell about getting wrapped up in geneogies and timelines as opposed to being absorbed in the heart of the message. When I approach the scriptures, I try to ask myself, what is the heart of the matter? What is the idea or concept that is being presented, and how can I apply that to the here and now?
Clay, you might find This article interesting. Here are a couple of excerpts:
"the narratives of the Torah are descriptions of the interrelation between Divine attributes in the spiritual realms. Nevertheless, since material existence is an outgrowth of spiritual existence, whatever happens in the spiritual realms is reflected in this world. Thus, every narrative in the Torah is a record of an actual event, but that event represents far more than what transpires in the material world. "
"The prison in which Yosef is held refers to the body, and to material existence as a whole. These tend to confine the infinite power of the soul and deny it expression. Although G-d gave man His Torah, His will and wisdom, the Torah is also affected by the limits of material existence, and its G-dly source is not always evident."
If you read the article in its entirety, please understand while I agree with some of its points, I also take offense at references indicating that the Jewish people are somehow called out separate and above non Jews. The "us v them" notion seems to permeate almost all religions to the point where for a time I gave up entirely on trying to learn more about God. I have since come back to studying and simply made up my mind I will have to take the good I can get out of it, and reject those things which offend me.
One theory that is postulated through the Kaballah is that in the beginning God encompassed the entire universe - everything was God and there was nothing else, as God is the being without end. In order to create physical space as we know it, God had to retract himself/conceal some of himsel and leave an "empty space"or vaccuum.
That empty space was formles and empty. . . and dark (because God is light and he had retracted himself and left an empty space).
God then hovered over the face of the deep and allowed some light back in and separated the light from the darkness.
If this interests you (And Todd if you are reading I think you will definitely enjoy this) you can read more here
Interesting. Thank you Abigail. This duality that has come up in this thread; I've read some about Zarathustra. His influence on Persia and the surrounding area. Did duality come from him, do you think? I do agree with the idea that duality began when Adan&Eve learned about the knowledge-of-good-and-evil. Some Christian historians I respect do not believe that the Adam&Eve& the serpent is literal. So I take note of that, BUT, it is hard for me to put that together with Romans 5. Not that I'm worried about contradictions. I am not. Just that Romans 5 makes me line up a literal Adam with a literal Christ. Or should we make Romans 5 non-literal?
Which part of Rom 5 are you referring to? Or do you mean the whole thing?
I no longer consider myself Christian. But I still believe there is much to be learned from the NT.
I'll pick at Rom 5 a bit. . . .
The first part talks about being justified by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ. Well, Jesus taught as Moses did - that ALL of the law is accomplished via treating others as you would have them treat you. If we believe as Jesus believed - then we are of the same faith.
If we rejoice in hope and in suffering, because suffering produces perserverance and character and ultimately again hope - well there is your duality again, no? And our purpose in these bodies - to learn and build character.
It then goes on to say that sin entered the world by one man and death through sin, and that death reigned. There is an implication that death reigns no more, but we still die, yes? So obviously this cannot be literal in the sense that we understand it today. How did "death reign" when Paul was writing those words?
Now - think about who is being spoken to - what were their beliefs? The Sanheidren did not believe in eternal life, though the Pharasees did. However, the Pharasees were very legalistic and sin conscious. Could Paul have simply been using a figure of speech specific to their belief system to show them something? What?
Perhaps exactly what Jesus taught - that the laws are for man. Their purposes was to teach them health, a societal system, and to teach them about God. And because the laws are for man, man has some discretion (grace) in how they are applied and utilized.
Think about it, did Jesus fulfill the laws? I seem to recall a time or two when he violated them. However, he violated them for just cause.
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hard for some to hear maybe, but Jesus had to sin to die.
Without the shedding of blood is no remission.
Jesus shed his blood for all, even himself.
Now it's a different deal-a second time without sin unto salvation.
Every man in his own order.
Here and now or later it will happen.
No one will not look for Christ either now or later.
The Christ-the true reality of Life.
he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation
which means to me Christ is here but not yet appeared to many
I don't know if you are still following the thread on "Eve and healing the world", but in reading these verses, it seems to me that the Christian Christ is the equivalent of the Jewish Shechina.
It's funny and interesting and inspiring and heart warming when faiths meets.
I have crossed paths with a few and it it is always a blessing.
I haven't followed the links you provided.
I expect you are not hurt.
But to really see Christ or any other name it is called work within.
It is a blessing to my soul. And works in many ways.
This Christ or whatever it's called in any religion or thinking, does not negate truth.
Truth a double edged blade, cutting in and out and healing at the same time.
I sort of feel like an artist or musician that doesn't want to be influenced by others much.
Many great artists in music and art seclude themselves so as not to be influenced by others.
But to really see what can be seen.
Others do influence me in good ways though.
Why even allan has crossed paths with me though he may not have seen it.
And as we cross paths with mutual believing-believing what we have seen and heard and ready to answer-it is quite the uplift in spirit and soul and body, which are all interlinked. And needed in so many ways.
We have been on this place for sometime now and more then once we have met face to face without even seeing each other.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:[.....]Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:12, 5:18, 5:19)
If you skip the parantheses you see. By one man, the offense of one, by the righteousness of one, one man's disobedience, the obedience of one. You see? So I could never follow the reasoning of some others who do not want a literal Adam in their Christian theology.
Carl
I am with you on that one Smuda.
To me the whole bible falls apart if Adam and Eve were only "figurative".
Christ is the second Adam. His very coming is based on "man" in general yes, but, there had to be a first.
Everything He accomplished for us, is based on them being literal.
Clay, I think it would be hard for you to offend me. Agree, disagree, study the same things or different, we are all on the same journey regardless of the path we chose.
Carl, I toss stuff out sometimes to offer a different perspective. Beyond that, see above - different path, same journey. Peace.
To me the whole bible falls apart if Adam and Eve were only "figurative".
Christ is the second Adam. His very coming is based on "man" in general yes, but, there had to be a first.
Everything He accomplished for us, is based on them being literal.
imo
Since we're talking about Genesis here, how about this thought. If you're going to take the story of Adam and Eve literally, it would seem to me God set up the world to be incestuous (if God is omniscient, and all. Or, did he wink at that provision to start the world). Since there were only two people at the start, Cain and Abel would had to have had sex with their sisters. Or, even more disgusting, they would have had to do it with their mother, Eve.
Yes, of course. If it is literal then the only womb was Eve's. And the offspring could only find a womb on their Mother and Sisters. Maybe that's why some greater minds do not accept a literal reading?
i thought this article might add a perspective to the Genesis account
(not that it re-explains anything, or that it replaces anything...just that it adds a little
cuz i really dont think the Genesis story can be so easily reduced to any one thing, anyway )
Fear of Snakes Drove Primate Evolution, Scientist Says
Ker Than - LiveScience Staff Writer
An evolutionary arms race between early snakes and mammals triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates, a radical new theory suggests.
The idea, proposed by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, suggests that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand.
To avoid becoming snake food, early mammals had to develop ways to detect and avoid the reptiles before they could strike. Some animals evolved better snake sniffers, while others developed immunities to serpent venom when it evolved. Early primates developed a better eye for color, detail and movement and the ability to see in three dimensions—traits that are important for detecting threats at close range.
Humans are descended from those same primates.
Scientists had previously thought that these traits evolved together as primates used their hands and eyes to grab insects, or pick fruit or to swing through trees, but recent discoveries from neuroscience are casting doubt on these theories.
"Primates went a particular route," Isbell told LiveScience. "They focused on improving their vision to keep away from [snakes]. Other mammals couldn't do that. Primates had the pre-adaptations to go that way."
Harry Greene, an evolutionary biologist and snake expert at Cornell University in New York, says Isbell's new idea is very exciting.
"It strikes me as a very special piece of scholarship and I think it's going to provoke a lot of thought," Greene said.
Isbell's work is detailed in the July issue of the Journal of Human Evolution.
A new weapon
Fossil and DNA evidence suggests that the snakes were already around when the first mammals evolved some 100 million years ago. The reptiles were thus among the first serious predators mammals faced. Today, the only other threats faced by primates are raptors, such as eagles and hawks, and large carnivores, such as bears, large cats and wolves, but these animals evolved long after snakes.
Furthermore, these other predators can be safely detected from a distance. For snakes, the opposite is true.
"If you see them close to you, you still have time to avoid them," Isbell said. "Primate vision is particularly good at close range."
Early snakes killed their prey using surprise attacks and by suffocating them to death—the method of boa constrictors. But the improved vision of primates, combined with other snake-coping strategies developed by other animals, forced snakes to evolve a new weapon: venom. This important milestone in snake evolution occurred about 60 million years ago.
"The [snakes] had to do something to get better at finding their prey, so that's where venom comes in," Isbell said. "The snakes upped the ante and then the primates had to respond by developing even better vision."
Once primates developed specialized vision and enlarged brains, these traits became useful for other purposes, such as social interactions in groups.
Seeing in 3D
Isbell's new theory could explain how a number of primate-defining traits evolved.
For example, primates are among the few animals whose eyes face forward (most animals have eyes located on the sides of their heads). This so-called "orbital convergence" improves depth perception and allows monkeys and apes, including humans, to see in three dimensions. Primates also have better color vision than most animals and are also unique in relying heavily on vision when reaching and grasping for objects.
One of the most popular ideas for explaining how these traits evolved is called the "visual predation hypothesis." It proposes that our early ancestors were small, insect eating mammals and that the need to stalk and grab insects at close range was the driving force behind the evolution of improved vision.
Another popular idea, called the "leaping hypothesis," argues that orbital convergence is not only important for 3D vision, but also for breaking through camouflage. Thus, it would have been useful not only for capturing insects and finding small fruits, but also for aiming at small, hard-to-see branches during mid-leaps through trees.
But there are problems with both hypotheses, Isbell says.
First, there is no solid evidence that early primates were committed insectivores. It's possible that like many primates today, they were generalists, eating a variety of plant foods, such as leaves, fruit and nectar, as well as insects.
More importantly, recent neuroscience studies do not support the idea that vision evolved alongside the ability to reach and grasp. Rather, the data suggest that the reaching-and-grasping abilities of primates actually evolved before they learned to leap and before they developed stereoscopic, or 3D, vision.
Agents of evolutionary change
Isbell thinks proto-primates—the early mammals that eventually evolved into primates—were in better position compared to other mammals to evolve specialized vision and enlarged brains because of the foods they ate.
"They were eating foods high in sugar, and glucose is required for metabolizing energy," Isbell said. "Vision is a part of the brain, and messing with the brain takes a lot of energy so you're going to need a diet that allows you to do that."
Modern primates are among the most frugivorous, or "fruit-loving," of all mammals, and this trend might have started with the proto-primates. "Today there are primates that focus on leaves and things like that, but the earliest primates may have had a generalized diet that included fruits, nectar, flowers and insects," she said.
Thus, early primates not only had a good incentive for developing better vision, they might have already been eating the high-energy foods needed to do so.
Testing the theory
Isbell says her theory can be tested. For example, scientists could look at whether primates can visually detect snakes more quickly or more reliably than other mammals. Scientists could also examine whether there are differences in the snake-detecting abilities of primates from around the world.
"You could see whether there is any difference between Malagasy lemurs, South American primates and the African and Asian primates," Isbell said.
Anthropologists have tended to stress things like hunting to explain the special adaptations of primates, and particularly humans, said Greene, the Cornell snake expert, but scientists are starting to warm to the idea that predators likely played a large role in human evolution as well.
"Getting away from things is a big deal, too," Greene said in a telephone interview.
If snake and primate history are as intimately connected as Isbell suggests, then it might account for other things as well, Greene added.
"Snakes and people have had a long history; it goes back to long before we were people in fact," he said. "That might sort of explain why we have such extreme attitudes towards snakes, varying from deification to "ophidiphobia," or fear of snakes.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
I believe it is both, a parable and a history. I will do some research and share more - though I have also committed to research and sharing in another thread as well. So, please be patient with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
btw that was copy and pasted from a website
i just think there is a lot to genesis that we haven't realized yet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Here's what I find disturbing:
"As long as man is aware of opposites, he cannot be with God, because god is aware of the whole. It is only by becoming aware of the whole, seeing that all things are the same, that we can be with God and eat from the tree of life. That is the message that is lost."
I guess it depends on what is meant by "all things are the same". Because I think opposites do exist and that God created them. Likewise I think there is good and there is evil.
For example - how can the murder of an innocent person be seen as "part of the same"? I see that line of thinking as full of potential dangers. It is the same type of thinking that allowed leaders in TWI to committ adultery - "all things are lawful" if you are spiritual enough.
Beyond that, I agree there are parables within Genesis, as well as the rest of the Bible. Layers upon layers of learning and understanding there.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I believe along the same lines as Abigail. Some of it is metaphor and some quite literal.
For example, when it says God created the heavens and earth, I take that literally. When it refers to the tree of life, I see that as figurative.
I see Genesis as much more than a parable, although I agree it has some deep figurative and symbolic language.
I agree with Mr. Campbell about getting wrapped up in geneogies and timelines as opposed to being absorbed in the heart of the message. When I approach the scriptures, I try to ask myself, what is the heart of the matter? What is the idea or concept that is being presented, and how can I apply that to the here and now?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Clay, you might find This article interesting. Here are a couple of excerpts:
"the narratives of the Torah are descriptions of the interrelation between Divine attributes in the spiritual realms. Nevertheless, since material existence is an outgrowth of spiritual existence, whatever happens in the spiritual realms is reflected in this world. Thus, every narrative in the Torah is a record of an actual event, but that event represents far more than what transpires in the material world. "
"The prison in which Yosef is held refers to the body, and to material existence as a whole. These tend to confine the infinite power of the soul and deny it expression. Although G-d gave man His Torah, His will and wisdom, the Torah is also affected by the limits of material existence, and its G-dly source is not always evident."
If you read the article in its entirety, please understand while I agree with some of its points, I also take offense at references indicating that the Jewish people are somehow called out separate and above non Jews. The "us v them" notion seems to permeate almost all religions to the point where for a time I gave up entirely on trying to learn more about God. I have since come back to studying and simply made up my mind I will have to take the good I can get out of it, and reject those things which offend me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I agree Goey with this
Although I don't want to limit our understanding of it to two words-metaphor or literal;Which I'm pretty sure you see the same, but lack of vocabulary limits.
Yes! that is the point to me and the point of not only understanding but seeing it.
Abigail,
Yes the us verses them and the opposites. Phases for many to go thru.
To turn the opposites into one and the us verses them into us.
Which is one.
To see what is the root of the matter and how to turn it.
Or moreso, to see it turn in our lives. In perspective and seeing.
This is why I see the tree as one, not two.
Along with seeing good and evil, there is the choice for life.
One branch of the tree of life, the systems of growing.
Here and now as Goey said.
And the one must die to be born as a seed dies to bring forth life.
Bringing together the opposites and the us and them.
Which is in our minds.
I think there are many things that will occur that will bring this to pass.
A road, a journey, a seek and find.
Not eliminating the opposites or the us and them thinking.
But transforming in real time that takes time.
Sometimes in the twinkling of an eye.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD MOVED UPON THE FACE OF THE WATERS....
I believe that is Being. The God divided the waters from the waters...and called it the heavens? In Being we live and move.
The thought struck me, the Christ eliminated the "Them and Us" dualism. The Apostle-to-the-Gentiles called it a "Great Mystery."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Nice to meet you Carl.
One theory that is postulated through the Kaballah is that in the beginning God encompassed the entire universe - everything was God and there was nothing else, as God is the being without end. In order to create physical space as we know it, God had to retract himself/conceal some of himsel and leave an "empty space"or vaccuum.
That empty space was formles and empty. . . and dark (because God is light and he had retracted himself and left an empty space).
God then hovered over the face of the deep and allowed some light back in and separated the light from the darkness.
If this interests you (And Todd if you are reading I think you will definitely enjoy this) you can read more here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Interesting. Thank you Abigail. This duality that has come up in this thread; I've read some about Zarathustra. His influence on Persia and the surrounding area. Did duality come from him, do you think? I do agree with the idea that duality began when Adan&Eve learned about the knowledge-of-good-and-evil. Some Christian historians I respect do not believe that the Adam&Eve& the serpent is literal. So I take note of that, BUT, it is hard for me to put that together with Romans 5. Not that I'm worried about contradictions. I am not. Just that Romans 5 makes me line up a literal Adam with a literal Christ. Or should we make Romans 5 non-literal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
I am with you on that one Smuda.
To me the whole bible falls apart if Adam and Eve were only "figurative".
Christ is the second Adam. His very coming is based on "man" in general yes, but, there had to be a first.
Everything He accomplished for us, is based on them being literal.
imo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
it's literally figurative and figuratively literal
it's real, only God can open our eyes to it
and more and more when we keep looking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Which part of Rom 5 are you referring to? Or do you mean the whole thing?
I no longer consider myself Christian. But I still believe there is much to be learned from the NT.
I'll pick at Rom 5 a bit. . . .
The first part talks about being justified by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ. Well, Jesus taught as Moses did - that ALL of the law is accomplished via treating others as you would have them treat you. If we believe as Jesus believed - then we are of the same faith.
If we rejoice in hope and in suffering, because suffering produces perserverance and character and ultimately again hope - well there is your duality again, no? And our purpose in these bodies - to learn and build character.
It then goes on to say that sin entered the world by one man and death through sin, and that death reigned. There is an implication that death reigns no more, but we still die, yes? So obviously this cannot be literal in the sense that we understand it today. How did "death reign" when Paul was writing those words?
Now - think about who is being spoken to - what were their beliefs? The Sanheidren did not believe in eternal life, though the Pharasees did. However, the Pharasees were very legalistic and sin conscious. Could Paul have simply been using a figure of speech specific to their belief system to show them something? What?
Perhaps exactly what Jesus taught - that the laws are for man. Their purposes was to teach them health, a societal system, and to teach them about God. And because the laws are for man, man has some discretion (grace) in how they are applied and utilized.
Think about it, did Jesus fulfill the laws? I seem to recall a time or two when he violated them. However, he violated them for just cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hard for some to hear maybe, but Jesus had to sin to die.
Without the shedding of blood is no remission.
Jesus shed his blood for all, even himself.
Now it's a different deal-a second time without sin unto salvation.
Every man in his own order.
Here and now or later it will happen.
No one will not look for Christ either now or later.
The Christ-the true reality of Life.
he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation
which means to me Christ is here but not yet appeared to many
the Glory that shall be revealed in us
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Clay,
I don't know if you are still following the thread on "Eve and healing the world", but in reading these verses, it seems to me that the Christian Christ is the equivalent of the Jewish Shechina.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Hi Abigail,
It's funny and interesting and inspiring and heart warming when faiths meets.
I have crossed paths with a few and it it is always a blessing.
I haven't followed the links you provided.
I expect you are not hurt.
But to really see Christ or any other name it is called work within.
It is a blessing to my soul. And works in many ways.
This Christ or whatever it's called in any religion or thinking, does not negate truth.
Truth a double edged blade, cutting in and out and healing at the same time.
I sort of feel like an artist or musician that doesn't want to be influenced by others much.
Many great artists in music and art seclude themselves so as not to be influenced by others.
But to really see what can be seen.
Others do influence me in good ways though.
Why even allan has crossed paths with me though he may not have seen it.
And as we cross paths with mutual believing-believing what we have seen and heard and ready to answer-it is quite the uplift in spirit and soul and body, which are all interlinked. And needed in so many ways.
We have been on this place for sometime now and more then once we have met face to face without even seeing each other.
Even disagreements are only on the surface.
You Friend Always,
Clay
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Abigail,
this part of Romans Five:
If you skip the parantheses you see. By one man, the offense of one, by the righteousness of one, one man's disobedience, the obedience of one. You see? So I could never follow the reasoning of some others who do not want a literal Adam in their Christian theology.Carl
Thank you Bliss.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Clay, I think it would be hard for you to offend me. Agree, disagree, study the same things or different, we are all on the same journey regardless of the path we chose.
Carl, I toss stuff out sometimes to offer a different perspective. Beyond that, see above - different path, same journey. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Since we're talking about Genesis here, how about this thought. If you're going to take the story of Adam and Eve literally, it would seem to me God set up the world to be incestuous (if God is omniscient, and all. Or, did he wink at that provision to start the world). Since there were only two people at the start, Cain and Abel would had to have had sex with their sisters. Or, even more disgusting, they would have had to do it with their mother, Eve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Yes, of course. If it is literal then the only womb was Eve's. And the offspring could only find a womb on their Mother and Sisters. Maybe that's why some greater minds do not accept a literal reading?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i thought this article might add a perspective to the Genesis account
(not that it re-explains anything, or that it replaces anything...just that it adds a little
cuz i really dont think the Genesis story can be so easily reduced to any one thing, anyway
)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
interesting perspective of the relationship between snakes and men
seen throughout the kjv as far as i can tell
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.