Is the Bible acceptable?

IMHO, the Eden story is enigmatic, without being wholly allegorical. While I do see it as allegory and metaphorical, it is fastediously alligned with the essence of reality, which makes it a center-point of human existentialism and meaning.It is metaphorical if seen only as a realistic and imperically evidential story, and one asking what is the address and location of Eden - becomes inadequate: specially so when the OT is awash with specific historical detail later, and not seen elsewhere. This answer should not be expected to be answered: it lists talking serpents and angels which bar the entrance with firey swords turning every which way - so it is not on this here earth. So where is it? perhaps it is in the mind?Equally, it also says that humans will forever be tested and pitted against laws and decisions in all they do, on every corner and turn, on the levels of both individuals and nations. Humans may given everything, yet they aspire to the unreachable, dismissing the bounty of all the fruit for one. This is its reality, which is not metaphoricial, and one understandable to all generations.Significantly, this story is placed at a transit mid point between a generic description of human emergence, and that of a historical scenario of humans. Adam is a generic term for human, then it becomes a pronoun for a real historical person on the earth. This is excellent narrative style, connecting and demanding both realms of thought. Historical rivers come out from a mysterios garden hovering somewhere between the universe and a point outside it - then becomes an identifiable one on earth: this cannot be an error in mythical prose, but appears to be intentionally inclined in being metaphoric at a deep level.It is like the verse, 'LET THERE BE LIGHT': is that actual or an expressionism? - it appears to work both ways, making it a perfect metaphor, yet it may also be scientifically viable. The term of talking serpents and one which will crawl in the dust - also says the serpent in some distant realm did talk and did not crawl - which better answers the question where are the two rivers located! IMHO, this story makes us think and is excellently placed prior to the historical contents which follows it: it is a preamble, alligning with creationism and monotheism - namely a finite created universe, and one created in supreme wisdom.So I see it more as a message than a story.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I certainly see a deep cadence in the first few genesis chapters, which has not been deciphered as yet. It is open to multi applications in any generation, and this cannot be a fluke or co-incidence. The aspect of the technical term of create - 'bara' [something from nothing] - being replaced with 'form' [something from something else] for the rest of the five books, tells me this is no typo; it also tells me that unless in the beginning there was such a phenomenon as ex nehilo, all other views end up in a cyclical brick wall scenario - the surest evidence which path is wrong.Genesis 1/1 even answers the question what preceded this beginning in its opening 4 words ['In the beginning God'], alligning this with the creation of the universe [namely the heavens and the earth]. At this same point it says in its very first alphabet, which is 'B' - not to look for proof of the 'A', which is barred, with the advocation to go forth only. As you may know, this second alphabet is a square, with only the go forth side open; all other sides of this square B [beth] are slammed shut, with no other path around it: thus science cannot find its long saught singularity factor. This 'B' is dangling nwhere with nothing else existing, being the opening first entity in the OT. Thus the A remains elusive, while the same verse is declaring there is a Creator. IOW, YES, but you wont find proof. This is oppressive, high pressure taunting to a curious creature as humans, designed with the knowledge humans wont/cant stop looking.This accounts for why we know nothing whatsoever of anything's origins, despite all of humanity's pondering and searching. IMHO, there is no lacking in our minds - we have fathomed the first nano seconds of the BBT, yet know nothing of its one single step further back origin - it is simply barred at this time. Yet humans climb mountain peaks knowing there is nothing up there - this is a yearning and calling to know our source, akin to an orphan seeking its biological parent. It is a brilliant plan. That there is nothing wrong with our thinking ability, and that the ultimate answers are purposefully barred, is in the text, when this was asked by Moses:'AS THE HEAVENS ARE ABOVE THE EARTH SO ARE MY THOUGHTS HIGHER THAN YOURS AND YOUR WAYS NOT MINE' [Ex].And Moses, who came closest to the core of knowing, departed earth w/o knowing:'THE SECRETS REMAIN WITH THE LORD'Its deeper meaning is the purpose of creation is not yet given, pending a higher vocab being reached. this is also the fundamental reason for a Messiah. We are here, and we don't know why - or where here is or where we will go to - or even if there is somewhere to go to. It borders on an unjust scenario from a judiciary and moral/ethical premise. No human knows now or before, and its not anyone's minds which is the problem.

The premise of something from nothing is derived from a creation made w/o tools and elements - as in a snap of the fingers ['GOD SAID - AND IT WAS SO']. There can be no other view here. The aspect of form from the void does not negate the ex nehilo, but affirms it: both the unformed and the means to make it into 'formed' is also factored in the equation in the text: both the unformed void and the formed order [2nd verse], appear after everything in the universe was created/given in the first verse.I dont think the special term of bara appearing only in the first creation chapter is a typo - not with such a document which is fastidious with every alphabet, which has a numeral value: no errors are possible here.

quote:

---

The word bara as "to shape". There is nothing in that verb that implies "ex nihilo=from nothing."

---

Not so when the context is regarded. One cannot shape what does not exist. Here, it refers to a uniqie making/creating - without tools and other products. What happens is, because this type of unique creation is not ever seen, we simply use the term create as form, in everyday speech. We say a song was created by the Beatles, but they used already existing notes which were always dangling in the air - and they put it together in their own mode: this is not exactly the kind of creating pointed out in Genesis ch. 1. Here, first the Beatles would have to 'create' the notes which make a song possible - without using any existing tools and products.Analogy: there is clay and there is a sculpter of the clay. Both were created.Yes, I see this as a fascinating premise, because it is the only explaination for the emergence of the universe. Everything else ends up in a cyclical brick wall: proof it is wrong. Its fascinating an ancient document makes such a premise. The ex nehilo is taken up very seriously in an ancient science called kabalah, going to extreme lengths to justify it, even by listing some transit points how it was processed: like the first action [verb] was the action of an IMPARTING of the original entity of itself - and that nothing can happen without this. Its hedy and deep, and I dont profess to understand ex nehilo or explain it - except that I see no alternative to it.Remember at all times - the universe is finite [there was a 'BEGINNING'/Gen]. Once, there were no tools, products, energy, space, particles- these are all post-uni. So even BB Booms are out -this too is post uni - or better, post ex nehilo. This finite premise must be the preamble when discussing such issues.Cheers.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.