Blog 5 MOTHER of all RIDDLES
In Genesis 2:5 which is leading to the Garden of Eden story, God tells us ‘there was no rain.’ The Bible is perfect and there are no errors in it.
Science tells us that in that period of time there was rain. Science is correct also.
Question: Can you explain how science (there was rain) and the Bible (there was no rain) both can be correct?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Tree of Life vs. Tree of Knowledge of Good & Bad
TREE of LIFE vs. TREE of KNOWLEDGE of GOOD & BAD (EVIL)
In the parable of the Garden of Eden, we are told that the two key trees around which the story of Eden is all about are the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad (Evil).
God tells Adam that he could eat ‘freely’ of any of the trees of the Garden “but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Bad you must not eat thereof, for on the day you eat of it, die, you shall die.”
What is so terrible about partaking of a fruit that will provide a person with knowledge? Shouldn’t that fruit be in fact a ‘must eat’ fruit?
It turns out that there is nothing wrong with the tree itself but among the things that was wrong was man’s ideas of what to expect he could achieve by partaking of the fruits of that tree.
We learn from the Bible that the snake led Eve to believe people who would eat from that tree would then become special as gods themselves. That meant women could avoid the pains of childbearing, the struggles of men to produce food would be minimized, and people would have what they had always sought for and that is immortality.
But the true tragedy of partaking of that tree was to be that the people who did it had disobeyed God. In Proverbs 3:7, King Solomon warned us against such behavior and he admonished “Do not be wise in your own eyes….” In our vernacular, this simply means that no person knows better than God what is best for oneself. The wisdom that Adam and Eve gained by eating from that tree was that they learned their beliefs and expectations were wrong and that they should have obeyed God.
One requirement for understanding a parable is to understand the vernacular expressions of the time. The threat of instant death is also part of the parable requiring interpretation because instant death did not follow after Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit and God had the people of the parable leaving the Garden and continuing with life. From II Samuel 12:5 we learn that the threat of death was actually a threat of punishment.
Nachmanides, one of the great Sages who was also a physician, had noted that man has to die eventually and death would have followed Adam even if he had not disobeyed God. We know that death had always followed all life and no one had been immune from this biologic process.
Even more mind boggling is the intriguing puzzle of how could both of those 2 trees be located in the same spot in the very center of the Garden?
Questions:
How could both trees in question be in the same spot and where is the Garden of Eden?
Hint:
Solve either puzzle and you’ve solved both.
Where Are The Answers:
The answers are found at the end of chapter two of the book and they will amaze you. The chapter also offers a detailed explanation and analysis of each verse of the Garden of Eden story. Order your copy now and walk a new path to the understanding of the Bible.
In the parable of the Garden of Eden, we are told that the two key trees around which the story of Eden is all about are the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad (Evil).
God tells Adam that he could eat ‘freely’ of any of the trees of the Garden “but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Bad you must not eat thereof, for on the day you eat of it, die, you shall die.”
What is so terrible about partaking of a fruit that will provide a person with knowledge? Shouldn’t that fruit be in fact a ‘must eat’ fruit?
It turns out that there is nothing wrong with the tree itself but among the things that was wrong was man’s ideas of what to expect he could achieve by partaking of the fruits of that tree.
We learn from the Bible that the snake led Eve to believe people who would eat from that tree would then become special as gods themselves. That meant women could avoid the pains of childbearing, the struggles of men to produce food would be minimized, and people would have what they had always sought for and that is immortality.
But the true tragedy of partaking of that tree was to be that the people who did it had disobeyed God. In Proverbs 3:7, King Solomon warned us against such behavior and he admonished “Do not be wise in your own eyes….” In our vernacular, this simply means that no person knows better than God what is best for oneself. The wisdom that Adam and Eve gained by eating from that tree was that they learned their beliefs and expectations were wrong and that they should have obeyed God.
One requirement for understanding a parable is to understand the vernacular expressions of the time. The threat of instant death is also part of the parable requiring interpretation because instant death did not follow after Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit and God had the people of the parable leaving the Garden and continuing with life. From II Samuel 12:5 we learn that the threat of death was actually a threat of punishment.
Nachmanides, one of the great Sages who was also a physician, had noted that man has to die eventually and death would have followed Adam even if he had not disobeyed God. We know that death had always followed all life and no one had been immune from this biologic process.
Even more mind boggling is the intriguing puzzle of how could both of those 2 trees be located in the same spot in the very center of the Garden?
Questions:
How could both trees in question be in the same spot and where is the Garden of Eden?
Hint:
Solve either puzzle and you’ve solved both.
Where Are The Answers:
The answers are found at the end of chapter two of the book and they will amaze you. The chapter also offers a detailed explanation and analysis of each verse of the Garden of Eden story. Order your copy now and walk a new path to the understanding of the Bible.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Sun
All Bibles read that the Sun was made in Day 4. In Genesis 1:16 most translations read “God ‘made’ the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.”
Here then we are presented with a lot of assumptions and therefore confusions. Period 4 began four billion years ago and that was approximately 500 million years after Period 1 had begun. (See Blog 1 which explains, as the great sage Nachmanides claimed, that the world was created in six periods and not days.) A lot of the creation process that took place between Periods 1 and 4, required sunlight. Now science says that the Sun was created in Period 1 at the same time as the Earth so hence the confusion. So how do we account for the discrepancy if we claim the Torah (Bible) is absolutely perfect and science teaches something totally different from what creationist students are taught?
The response turns out to be quite simple. The Torah and science are in agreement but the problem is the way the translation of the Bible reads and the assumptions made as a result of such translation.
The Hebrew word found in chapter 1 of Genesis for the meaning of ‘create’ is transliterated as BORAH. That word for create is only used for something unique as it has been produced by God for the first time and there is nothing similar to it.
The Hebrew word found in chapter 1 of Genesis for the meaning of ‘made’ is transliterated as YA-AS. But ‘made’ is not a correct translation for Genesis 1:16 because according to the Sages, at the time of the Exodus that word was used to convey the thought of ‘putting something into its ultimate position.’ That something is an entity that already had been created.
So two factors have to be considered. The first is that the word BORAH is not a synonym for YA-AS. Yet most Bible readers consider those two words as synonyms and believe God created the Sun for the first time in Period 4, even though the word YA-AS tells us that the Sun had already been created earlier.
The second is that a more proper translation should read:
And God set the two great luminaries into their predetermined ordained positions, the greater luminary to dominate the day and the lesser luminary to dominate the night and the stars.
Science also tells us that the Moon was created after Period 1 was begun. The most accepted astronomical theory for the Moon’s formation was that the Earth was hit from space by an object the size of Mars and that crash sent tons of rock and debris into orbit. Those fragments eventually coalesced to form the Moon. The Earth’s gravity keeps our Moon in orbit.
So why would God use Period 4 to adjust the ultimate position of the Sun and the Moon?
It appears that the Earth’s position in the solar system in relation to the Sun and Moon was optimal at that time to make the period of 135 million years ago (the time in Period 4 when the ‘adjustment’ was taking place) the benchmark standard.
More Biblical and scientific information for this phenomenon is discussed in Chapter 1.
Here then we are presented with a lot of assumptions and therefore confusions. Period 4 began four billion years ago and that was approximately 500 million years after Period 1 had begun. (See Blog 1 which explains, as the great sage Nachmanides claimed, that the world was created in six periods and not days.) A lot of the creation process that took place between Periods 1 and 4, required sunlight. Now science says that the Sun was created in Period 1 at the same time as the Earth so hence the confusion. So how do we account for the discrepancy if we claim the Torah (Bible) is absolutely perfect and science teaches something totally different from what creationist students are taught?
The response turns out to be quite simple. The Torah and science are in agreement but the problem is the way the translation of the Bible reads and the assumptions made as a result of such translation.
The Hebrew word found in chapter 1 of Genesis for the meaning of ‘create’ is transliterated as BORAH. That word for create is only used for something unique as it has been produced by God for the first time and there is nothing similar to it.
The Hebrew word found in chapter 1 of Genesis for the meaning of ‘made’ is transliterated as YA-AS. But ‘made’ is not a correct translation for Genesis 1:16 because according to the Sages, at the time of the Exodus that word was used to convey the thought of ‘putting something into its ultimate position.’ That something is an entity that already had been created.
So two factors have to be considered. The first is that the word BORAH is not a synonym for YA-AS. Yet most Bible readers consider those two words as synonyms and believe God created the Sun for the first time in Period 4, even though the word YA-AS tells us that the Sun had already been created earlier.
The second is that a more proper translation should read:
And God set the two great luminaries into their predetermined ordained positions, the greater luminary to dominate the day and the lesser luminary to dominate the night and the stars.
Science also tells us that the Moon was created after Period 1 was begun. The most accepted astronomical theory for the Moon’s formation was that the Earth was hit from space by an object the size of Mars and that crash sent tons of rock and debris into orbit. Those fragments eventually coalesced to form the Moon. The Earth’s gravity keeps our Moon in orbit.
So why would God use Period 4 to adjust the ultimate position of the Sun and the Moon?
It appears that the Earth’s position in the solar system in relation to the Sun and Moon was optimal at that time to make the period of 135 million years ago (the time in Period 4 when the ‘adjustment’ was taking place) the benchmark standard.
More Biblical and scientific information for this phenomenon is discussed in Chapter 1.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Adam and Eve-Mistranslations Cause Misinterpretations
In Genesis 3:7 Adam and Eve discovered they were naked so they sewed together fig leaves (leaves as in the plural) for clothing. But the original Hebrew scrolls use the word leaf (leaf as in the singular). Now you ask, why do we all read a mistranslated version of the original? Well, it would appear that it was decided years ago that more than one leaf should have been used for an adequate ensemble so in translating to other languages the plural was used.
So who cares?!
We should all care because without the proper translation of the original Hebrew we cannot arrive at a proper interpretation of what this meant in the parable of Eden story.
We should all care because with a proper interpretation of the parable of Eden- the many details of that story appearing vague- we learn the Torah actually says women are the equal of men, women are not responsible for original sin, etc.
In the case of 'leaves', we learn in chapter 2 that clothing represented the contrition of expressed remorse and an explanation for their conduct, all in metaphorial language. We learn that the excuses offered by Adam and Eve both were lacking and inadequate. We learn this is all reflected by use of a single leaf (each offered the same excuse by blaming others for their conduct) and this proved to be unacceptable. Therefore God had to prepare other 'clothing' (understanding of what true contrition should have been) and Adam and Eve both were not forgiven and instead were expelled from the Garden.
So who cares?!
We should all care because without the proper translation of the original Hebrew we cannot arrive at a proper interpretation of what this meant in the parable of Eden story.
We should all care because with a proper interpretation of the parable of Eden- the many details of that story appearing vague- we learn the Torah actually says women are the equal of men, women are not responsible for original sin, etc.
In the case of 'leaves', we learn in chapter 2 that clothing represented the contrition of expressed remorse and an explanation for their conduct, all in metaphorial language. We learn that the excuses offered by Adam and Eve both were lacking and inadequate. We learn this is all reflected by use of a single leaf (each offered the same excuse by blaming others for their conduct) and this proved to be unacceptable. Therefore God had to prepare other 'clothing' (understanding of what true contrition should have been) and Adam and Eve both were not forgiven and instead were expelled from the Garden.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Proving the Biblical Story of Creation - among others
The book, “Why Human Beings Do Not Need Blind Faith to Believe in Creationism” should, among other things, resolve the conflicts between those that believe in the timeless truths of the Bible and the findings of modern science. This is so because with the translations of key Hebrew words in Genesis 1 based on their etymological derivate meanings and usage during the period of the Exodus, and incorporating the findings of the Sages and foremost scientists that made contributions, our research has literally proved that the Biblical story of creation is actually in sync with the teachings of modern science. The ramifications are myriad.
Science and every detail of the Biblical story of creation being in sync makes it clear that only a Supreme Power could have issued the Torah (Bible) to Moses. It would have been humanly impossible for Moses or 1000 like him to have known the exact chronological order of creation, that life started in the oceans, and other details of the creation process. Thomas Jefferson had noted that the problem with many organized religions is that they call for blind faith and what is really needed to bring people to the Bible is a rationale for belief. By proving the creation story’s sync with science, the book provides that rationale and thus the first consequence of the project is that it should make people aware that the Bible is to be taken seriously as now there is no question that the world was formed by design.
The biggest challenge we found to address was the mindset of man in chapter 1 of the Bible where the verses translated as ‘and it was evening, and it was morning, day one (2, 3, etc.).’ Taking that to mean a 24 hour day has become an article of faith even though evening to morning was not 24 hours and great Sages like Nachmanides said it should be considered as periods of time and not single days.
The challenge is resolved by using the etymological derivate meanings of the key words. The word for ‘evening’ as used by the Israelites of the Exodus also means among other things, ‘forms mingle and become indistinct,’ and this refers to having embryonic or early shaping up of land structures being developed during which time we can not tell one entity from another at that point of their development even though they are each developing independently of the other creations. That word for ‘evening’ was metaphorically not referring to a period of time but to a mix of entities that were not yet recognizable as they were starting to develop.
The word for ‘morning’ also etymologically means ‘to distinguish differences.’ This means that at the end of the period in question, the entities created became developed enough to be recognizable, as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation referring to a particular period of daytime.
The word for ‘day’ also etymologically means ‘ascend,’ as move on to a higher point or level. This means that at the end of the period of creation in question, that creative process was now ready to move onto the next and higher level.
The book addresses the issue of the many erroneously forced Biblical translations to justify interpretations based on the assumptions of the past. Example, all Bibles, both Christian and Jewish, translate Genesis 3:7 as Adam and Eve using fig leaves (leaves as in the plural) to make clothes for themselves. However, the original Bible of Moses uses the word ‘leaf’ as in the singular. As clothing was part of the metaphor demonstrating and expressing contrition, a proper interpretation of the parable of the Garden of Eden story could not be made if we do not use a correct translation.
We learned from the Garden of Eden story that women are the equal of men and are not responsible for the sins of mankind.
Biblical enigmas are addressed in other chapters. There are also secular political issues discussed as we tell of the Koran teaching that the ‘Promised Land’ is to belong to the Israelites. We also learn from Muslim scholars and supported by the Egyptian Government Publication that the Al Aqsa Mosque should have been built in Medina, Saudi Arabia and not in Jerusalem, Israel.
Every scholar is entitled to their interpretation of Scripture. However, the challenge always arises if they can ‘prove’ their position. Contributors to our book claim our proof being the sync with science and everyone is invited to peruse the website for more details.
The project is not confrontational as it does not question the integrity of any of the religions using the Bible of Moses. The challenges presented are all academic and they should bring us all together to reason. All will be able to offer their followers a greater appreciation of the Bible as well as that myriad of other benefits.
Science and every detail of the Biblical story of creation being in sync makes it clear that only a Supreme Power could have issued the Torah (Bible) to Moses. It would have been humanly impossible for Moses or 1000 like him to have known the exact chronological order of creation, that life started in the oceans, and other details of the creation process. Thomas Jefferson had noted that the problem with many organized religions is that they call for blind faith and what is really needed to bring people to the Bible is a rationale for belief. By proving the creation story’s sync with science, the book provides that rationale and thus the first consequence of the project is that it should make people aware that the Bible is to be taken seriously as now there is no question that the world was formed by design.
The biggest challenge we found to address was the mindset of man in chapter 1 of the Bible where the verses translated as ‘and it was evening, and it was morning, day one (2, 3, etc.).’ Taking that to mean a 24 hour day has become an article of faith even though evening to morning was not 24 hours and great Sages like Nachmanides said it should be considered as periods of time and not single days.
The challenge is resolved by using the etymological derivate meanings of the key words. The word for ‘evening’ as used by the Israelites of the Exodus also means among other things, ‘forms mingle and become indistinct,’ and this refers to having embryonic or early shaping up of land structures being developed during which time we can not tell one entity from another at that point of their development even though they are each developing independently of the other creations. That word for ‘evening’ was metaphorically not referring to a period of time but to a mix of entities that were not yet recognizable as they were starting to develop.
The word for ‘morning’ also etymologically means ‘to distinguish differences.’ This means that at the end of the period in question, the entities created became developed enough to be recognizable, as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation referring to a particular period of daytime.
The word for ‘day’ also etymologically means ‘ascend,’ as move on to a higher point or level. This means that at the end of the period of creation in question, that creative process was now ready to move onto the next and higher level.
The book addresses the issue of the many erroneously forced Biblical translations to justify interpretations based on the assumptions of the past. Example, all Bibles, both Christian and Jewish, translate Genesis 3:7 as Adam and Eve using fig leaves (leaves as in the plural) to make clothes for themselves. However, the original Bible of Moses uses the word ‘leaf’ as in the singular. As clothing was part of the metaphor demonstrating and expressing contrition, a proper interpretation of the parable of the Garden of Eden story could not be made if we do not use a correct translation.
We learned from the Garden of Eden story that women are the equal of men and are not responsible for the sins of mankind.
Biblical enigmas are addressed in other chapters. There are also secular political issues discussed as we tell of the Koran teaching that the ‘Promised Land’ is to belong to the Israelites. We also learn from Muslim scholars and supported by the Egyptian Government Publication that the Al Aqsa Mosque should have been built in Medina, Saudi Arabia and not in Jerusalem, Israel.
Every scholar is entitled to their interpretation of Scripture. However, the challenge always arises if they can ‘prove’ their position. Contributors to our book claim our proof being the sync with science and everyone is invited to peruse the website for more details.
The project is not confrontational as it does not question the integrity of any of the religions using the Bible of Moses. The challenges presented are all academic and they should bring us all together to reason. All will be able to offer their followers a greater appreciation of the Bible as well as that myriad of other benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
