Aliens, Sin & Forgiveness

[Pedrito]

Post #5 on Page 1:

Plus, the first two chapters of Genesis are parables of sorts, aren't they? (and at least several chapters thereafter)

It would seem that IACOBVS, just as most of the members of Christendom apparently seem to do, has overlooked the fact that the early chapters of Genesis contain highly compressed and summarised information.

Think: Were God to have planned to entrust scientific knowledge to ancient Man for handing on down through multiple generations – knowledge meaningful only to people in our present age – how would He do it in such a way that the knowledge would not be lost in transmission, as “meaningless” information was progressively abandoned? The answer is to encode it into (embed it within) simple narratives that are easily remembered.

If one looks carefully at the early chapters of Genesis, one can easily come away thinking: “Wow! How did that ancient author know about scientific matters that were not discovered until relatively recently?”

Once again, Pedrito puts forward the thought that the careful study of the God’s Holy Revelation to us, can be mind-blowing.

 

[IACOBVS]

Post #5 on Page 1:


It would seem that IACOBVS, just as most of the members of Christendom apparently seem to do, has overlooked the fact that the early chapters of Genesis contain highly compressed and summarised information.

Think: Were God to have planned to entrust scientific knowledge to ancient Man for handing on down through multiple generations – knowledge meaningful only to people in our present age – how would He do it in such a way that the knowledge would not be lost in transmission, as “meaningless” information was progressively abandoned? The answer is to encode it into (embed it within) simple narratives that are easily remembered.

If one looks carefully at the early chapters of Genesis, one can easily come away thinking: “Wow! How did that ancient author know about scientific matters that were not discovered until relatively recently?”

Once again, Pedrito puts forward the thought that the careful study of the God’s Holy Revelation to us, can be mind-blowing.

Scientific matters that were not discovered until relatively recently? In Genesis? You're joking, right? Please elaborate, but it will take a lot to blow my mind.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #22 on Page 3:

Scientific matters that were not discovered until relatively recently? In Genesis? You're joking, right? Please elaborate, but it will take a lot to blow my mind.

Pedrito has already presented the thought that the early chapters of Genesis contain highly compressed and summarised information.

If that thought be true, then statements of God’s actions can sensibly be understood to be statements of achievement, as opposed to statements of mechanism.

In that light, Pedrito would like to submit a few initial questions of clarification. There are a heap more that can be presented later.

==============================================================================================

1. When (what year) was it first proposed that the Earth was originally a molten ball of “stuff” having no form as such as we see today, and void of life?

2. When was it first proposed that the land sections of Earth (as far as can be reliably tested and observed) were once below the surface of the sea? (Land as initially created by originally-undersea volcanoes would not necessarily exhibit undersea sedimentation. Nor would land created by volcanoes breaking through the surface of already-risen land.)

3. How did the author of Genesis know that the heavenly bodies would initially be obscured from the perspective of an observer on the surface? Did he know that Earth’s atmosphere would be originally thick with clouds (not necessarily only H2O)?

4. How did the author know that the heavenly bodies would become progressively visible? Did he know about the gradual deposition of suspended matter in the Earth’s atmosphere as the planet cooled?

5. When were those conditions (3 and 4) originally proposed in scientific circles?

==============================================================================================

Should Pedrito continue? (The questions get better, Pedrito would suggest.)

 

[Pedrito]

Post #5 on Page 1:

If anything, what happened here on Earth was an aberration of God's plan. What happened here ended up very like the saying of "trying to herd cats" for the poor old boy. He dabbled and knew it would likely go badly, so he had his back-up plan ready ... poor Jesus.

Pedrito suggests that that is not so.

Revelation 13:8: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

1 Peter 1:19,29:
“19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,”

Ephesians 1:4: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:”

Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;”

And as for "poor Jesus": “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2)

and

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” (Philippians 2:9)

==============================================================================================

So it is clear that the "Fall of Man" did not come as a surprise to God. He had already made provision for it. It was all part of His purpose – His grand plan, if you like.

Once again, a careful study of the Wonderful Book will reveal just what that grand plan is. (It may be difficult to identify that understanding within the conflicting "Gospels" proclaimed by most churches. So don't look there.)

Isaiah 55:8,9:
“8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

That is always good to keep in mind.

 

[Imalive]

Aliens are demons and Jesus didn't die for em. Both my exes saw a UFO and one of them was not on drugs.

 

[Josiah]

Both my exes saw a UFO and one of them was not on drugs.

:O_O:

 

[Pedrito]

Post #25 on Page 3:

Aliens are demons and Jesus didn't die for em. Both my exes saw a UFO and one of them was not on drugs.

UFO?

As in "flying saucer"?

It must have been a saucer (source of) much consternation.


(Did both exes see that same UFO at the same time? If not, Pedrito wonders how imdeadandidontknowit knew that only one of the UFO's was on drugs.)

 

[Pedrito]

Post #13 on Page 2:

Well God created Adam and Eve our ancestors here on Earth in the Garden of Eden.

Actually, God placed them in that special garden after they had come into existence elsewhere. Check.

A minor point maybe, but imprecision in minor things can lead to imprecision in major things as well.

And that kind of imprecision when handling God’s Holy Revelation, ends up causing all sorts of problems. Including false doctrines which lead to inter-denominational and intra-denominational bickering and quarrelling.

 

[Lamb]

Post #13 on Page 2:


Actually, God placed them in that special garden after they had come into existence elsewhere. Check.

Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and life breathed into him before the Garden of Eden was created. Genesis 2:7-8.

Eve was created after Adam was already living in the garden so she surely was created within the garden?

Genesis 2:20-22 But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

 

[Andrew]

Doesn't Earth just mean "Land" anyway? Maybe just as continents are separated by oceans, space also separates worlds or "lands" (Earth)
Just a thought.

Oh and a neat play on words, if you move the last letter to front "Earth", you get "Heart"

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

Lämmchen, Post #29 on Page 3:

Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and life breathed into him before the Garden of Eden was created. Genesis 2:7-8.

Eve was created after Adam was already living in the garden so she surely was created within the garden?

Genesis 2:20-22 But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Well pointed out.

However, in Genesis 2:18-20 it states that God created the animals after Adam was residing in the Special Garden.

Genesis 2:18-20: “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.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

That apparent conflict with information given in preceding statements in Genesis, gives rise to scholars postulating that Moses (or whoever they propose authored Genesis) tacked together two pre-existing and inconsistent accounts from different authors. (They also refer to differences in writing style, etc.)

So it would seem that Chapter 2 is not entirely chronological, but written in such a way as to capture our attention. (Possibly even to something that can only be understood by modern mankind? And possibly in a way that information for modern mankind would not be lost in transmission?)

==============================================================================================

Pedrito floats the thought that whenever a reader of the Bible comes across apparent inconsistencies such as this, or reads something that makes them scratch their heads (e.g. why did he/she/they do that, or make such a strange sounding or indirect statement? – or why did God act in that way in that situation?), the reader can be fairly certain that God has planted something in the text to get the reader’s attention, and that searching for the answer to the puzzle can lead to greater understanding and often to amazement.

==============================================================================================

So just as the animals existed before the first man was moved into the garden, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the first woman did, also.

 

[Lamb]

In one of my translations the wording is
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed which means that it had already taken place. Genesis 2 is not stating that after Adam was created that he created the other creatures. Have you checked other translations?

 

[Imalive]

Lämmchen, Post #29 on Page 3:


Well pointed out.

However, in Genesis 2:18-20 it states that God created the animals after Adam was residing in the Special Garden.

Genesis 2:18-20: “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.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

That apparent conflict with information given in preceding statements in Genesis, gives rise to scholars postulating that Moses (or whoever they propose authored Genesis) tacked together two pre-existing and inconsistent accounts from different authors. (They also refer to differences in writing style, etc.)

So it would seem that Chapter 2 is not entirely chronological, but written in such a way as to capture our attention. (Possibly even to something that can only be understood by modern mankind? And possibly in a way that information for modern mankind would not be lost in transmission?)

==============================================================================================

Pedrito floats the thought that whenever a reader of the Bible comes across apparent inconsistencies such as this, or reads something that makes them scratch their heads (e.g. why did he/she/they do that, or make such a strange sounding or indirect statement? – or why did God act in that way in that situation?), the reader can be fairly certain that God has planted something in the text to get the reader’s attention, and that searching for the answer to the puzzle can lead to greater understanding and often to amazement.

==============================================================================================

So just as the animals existed before the first man was moved into the garden, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the first woman did, also.

Oh I never noticed that. I just suppose He made em already, but it sounds like after Adam. I never noticed He made em from the ground too.

 

[Imalive]

 

[hedrick]

Pedrito floats the thought that whenever a reader of the Bible comes across apparent inconsistencies such as this, or reads something that makes them scratch their heads (e.g. why did he/she/they do that, or make such a strange sounding or indirect statement? – or why did God act in that way in that situation?), the reader can be fairly certain that God has planted something in the text to get the reader’s attention, and that searching for the answer to the puzzle can lead to greater understanding and often to amazement.

Or there were two traditional accounts of creation, and the editor thought both made points worth retaining.

 

[Pedrito]

Lämmchen, Post #32 on Page 4:

In one of my translations the wording is
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed which means that it had already taken place. Genesis 2 is not stating that after Adam was created that he created the other creatures. Have you checked other translations?

Once again, well pointed out!

Let’s have a closer look at the Hebrew.

==============================================================================================

Hebrew verbs have two tenses (or moods), termed “Imperfect” and “Perfect”.

“The imperfect expresses an action, process or condition which is
incomplete, and it has a wide range of meaning.” It may express ideas that are past, present or future. (Space does not permit the presentation of possible diverse examples.)

“The Perfect expresses a completed action.” It can be used in a number of contexts and perspectives, including expressing what would be the Present tense in English. (Once again, space does not permit the presentation of possible diverse examples.)

One of the Perfect perspectives is expressing an action “already completed from the point of view of another past act”. That can be termed “Past Perfect” or “Pluperfect”.

Is there a particular way that the Pluperfect is expressed in Hebrew, or do we have to guess or assume when the idea of a Past Perfect is in play?

==============================================================================================

According to investigations carried out by Pedrito some years ago (but at the time not widely presented in available Hebrew grammar reference material), there is a specific way in which the Pluperfect is expressed in Hebrew. And while Pedrito has never had the time to go hunting through the Hebrew Scriptures in detail to verify the concept to the nth degree, the examples he has stumbled across do indeed support its veracity.

The normal general structure of a Hebrew sentence is Verb-Subject-Object. As discussed in another thread, an אֵת (“ath” or “’eth”) is sometimes placed before the object for clarity.

The Pluperfect is represented by the variant structure Subject-Verb-Object, like sentences in English.

Next, we'll look at some Hebrew Scriptures and see if (how) it all falls into place.


Continued...

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito proposed in his previous Post, that that the Past Perfect (Pluperfect) tense in Hebrew is represented by the Subject-Verb-Object construction, as opposed to the normal Verb-Subject-Object.

An example of this usage can be found in Exodus 12:35,36. Those verses are focussing on the period of time in which the Children of Israel were on the move towards the border of Egypt.

Both verses commence with the Subject-Verb-Object grammatical construction. Therefore if that construction does indeed indicate Past Perfect, the verses can validly be translated:
“35 And the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses [meaning they had faithfully obeyed everything that Moses had commanded them to do]“; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
36 And the LORD had given the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians [the Egyptians would have done anything to get rid of them], so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.”

That totally makes sense. And in these verses at least, the Past Perfect concept is given credence.

==============================================================================================

Now let’s look at the translation mentioned in Post #32:

In one of my translations the wording is
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed which means that it had already taken place. Genesis 2 is not stating that after Adam was created that he created the other creatures. Have you checked other translations?

That “out of the ground” expression occurs in Verses 9 and 19 of Genesis 2. In verse 9, the construction is Verb-Subject-Object. Verse 19 is the same.

Therefore, the thought of “had formed” which Pedrito assumes was proposed in an attempt to harmonise the two early Genesis accounts, appears to be misguided.

The events recorded in Genesis 2 are not necessarily designed to be sequential. Therefore, God must have had something else in mind when He had the account of Genesis 2 committed to writing.