The BIBLE and the BIG BANG.

The story of Adam and Eve contains several paradoxes.


If Adam and Eve, as the first humans created by God, knew nothing but paradise, it must be assumed that they were simple natural creatures, similar to animals.

As the Story of Genesis itself did not yet contain any state of sinfulness -

the Ten Commandments did not even exist at that time in the story - Adam and Eve could not have been sinners. The paradox is that they knew nothing of sins but were punished for sins as "theirs".

For if, as the first innocent human beings, they lived in ignorance of human weaknesses and strengths, the warning not to eat the fruit of the tree must have seemed to them neither alarming nor tempting.

The story is therefore puzzling.


Now, let's talk about the puzzle.

Where the first man, due to his innocent nature, is neither particularly fallible nor particularly infallible, God's statement "not to eat from the tree" basically comes across as a completely nonsensical statement.

Perhaps a comparison will help. When a father tells his three-year-old son not to use the bread-slicing machine in the kitchen, he is drawing the child's attention to the machine. The warning that the child could hurt itself is not understood by the child if it does not know what a bread slicer is. But by pointing to it, the father focuses the child's attention on this particular object.

Addition to the story

The child may remain indifferent to this, so it depends on how the story is further told. Another character is needed to disrupt the child's possible indifference. The snake enters the scene - and it, just like God himself, once again draws attention to the fruit of the tree and promises the opposite of danger, i.e. "recognition". Such a concentrated focus and the contradiction contained through having both statements on one and the same object arouses the curiosity of the innocent and inexperienced child. If not of its own accord, it will now take the fruit and taste it at the behest of both statements.

But if we now consider the entire creation mythology, God created all earthly creatures, including the serpent. But the serpent appears more human than animal, because it can speak. This raises the major question that if God is also the creator of the serpent, how it can be that it is able to speak and not only that, but also to contradict His will. This in turn can be followed by an interpretation and reading that concerns the question of God's omnipotence.


One interpretation can be that this omnipotence also expresses a weakness of power at the same time. For he who is as great and powerful as God, and who gives things their vitality, cannot nevertheless be so powerful as to foresee the very small details of their peculiarities and behaviour. If God has given things their vitality, it is nevertheless beyond his control how they develop in particular, because such is the nature of the living. It behaves unexpectedly and unpredictably just as it behaves predictably.

Creation therefore always contains an element of uncertainty and surprise.

Just as parents cannot predetermine the entire path of their children's lives, God cannot completely predetermine the path of humanity. If he could, both his own existence and ministry would be meaning less and creation would not even be necessary if everything could be precisely determined and controlled anyway.

There is therefore always a tension between fate and predictability, and this tension contains everything that makes creation - life - so fascinating.

The fascination lies in the adventure.

Just as the cosmos is not a place that is merely the movement of cold celestial bodies, but contains something else, something far more mysterious, in addition to the physical events, being human and the human conscience is similarly a mystery that offers not total certainty, but a not total foreboding. Hunches have been shown to be significant whenever a human being grapples with questions of conscience about his or her existence. If he had total certainty, he would not be a human being.

The often expressed truncated version of certainty in uncertainty is found in Christians saying that "the Bible speaks the truth."

In fact, it can be said that the contradictions in Genesis express just that, that finding the truth is not easy, but puzzling, and therefore this statement is true and wants to be understood as such by Christians.

Minds that do not even deal with such theologically interesting questions demand a "proof of this truth" from a Christian.

They could just as well want to demand that the very first Bible ever published in book form should be brought forward. And if you did, of course they would not believe it.

But a Christian would not believe it either, because his concern is not to show the original text, but to respect the interpretations of the religious and handed-down scriptures. "Respect it" means to contemplate about the contents of biblical stories and to find orientation in them through this intimate act of contemplation (asking the self about important matters of conscience). Who wills to find faith, finds ways in favor of it, but who wills no faith, finds arguments against it.

"Will" is the crucial element.

To quote G. K. Chesterton:
"... the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an age of prejudices, just as it armoured itself with logic in an age of logic. But the difference between the two mental methods is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other’s way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic."

If one has the impression of the other that he is a bigot ("I do not talk to you") the bump into each other does not take place (or better: it maybe a bump but after it has happened the involved move away from each other without interacting). If one owes a creed and the other doesn't, what is the former supposed to say?

If a non Christian tells a Christian that what he believes in is "mere fantasy"

he not only shows that he does not want to talk but that he - as the alleged superior of the two - sees no need in building his own case. He offers no case at all. But he instead demands "evidence" of something which very obviously cannot offer such clear proof. He ends all theological debate even before he enters it.

This would be the same if a Christian demands proof from the non Christian (let's call him a materialist) of the "first Big Bang" - a widely accepted theory in the scientific realm. Now, what other is this theory than a mystery? Terence McKenna called it the

"one free miracle of science".

But both are bigots if they are not willing to talk to one another (accept the challenge).

In the comment section of this channel: You as a commenter can ask yourself if you are just throwing around superficialities or if there is genuine interest in what was offered in the video and through the speakers. Go ahead and challenge the weak arguments and formulations but stopp telling them that they dwell in fantasies.

End of comment. I wrote this text above in response to a commenter on this YT video - with slight alterations. I'd say this publication works without you knowing the original words of the commenter. But in case you are interested, I gave you the link.

I want to ad:

Man loves riddles.

He likes to spend time pondering them, wanting to solve them.

Once a puzzle is solved, however, it loses all fascination.

Who pretends that the riddle of existence has been solved obviously no longer seems fascinated by life.

Children can do nothing with riddles for adults,

but to pretend that the Bible verses, their various millennia-old manifold interpretations, the commentaries and sub-commentaries as well as the own writings of countless theologians are not puzzling but "simple" because someone imagines in his hitherto uninvolved mind only a book of Proverbs - and thus feels that very simplicity which he blames on others - shows that he is not interested at all.

All right. But if I have no interest in something, then the recommendation would be to remain silent instead of ridiculing something that was and is of such great importance to humanity.

Since there is a difference between laughing at the punch line of a joke

and talking about life as a (sad) joke because one has been greeted as a cynic in the salon, the cynic is dependent on (fatalistic) approval from his fellow cynics - what a depressing effort - while the faithful non frustrated believer is ready to laugh at a new joke and keep telling or let it coming at him.

The mistake that adults, that is, people who have gone through many years of life, make is that they believe a child to have certain sensations and explanations that correspond to that of an adult. The adult, in this sense, is like a god who, because of his potency and potential, can hardly maintain a conception of the innocence and ignorance of a child.

He is only able to speak about himself as a child in retrospect.
And he often imputes an adult mindset to his childish experiences and memories. So speaking as a child in retrospective is trying to recall ones memory as accurate. But most of the time the adult's present mind interferes so much that it overpowers the former mind as a kid and all what you have left of your memories are not exact words but lack of words. You then fill them in.

Just as speechless as parents often find themselves towards their young children,

one can interpret the role of God. He is, because he is thought of as omniscient and omnipotent, nevertheless a God surprised by his children's idiosyncrasies. If this were not so, the children of men would know every secret, they would already be the accomplished beings who see through their own existence. And thus they would have completed God's creation.

Those who do not like or are not used to the personification of God (and don't see it as art/artistic expression) may prefer to translate it for themselves and regard the spark of conscience as an inspiration from whatever source.

For my part, I have found that accepting religious language and calling it a "divine spark" (of conscience) makes it easier for me. For there is one thing I do consider bottomless presumption: to think that any wisdom grew on my own dung. I would therefore like to express my appreciation to those whom we commonly recognise as "giants on whose shoulders we stand".

Since I am a Christian and was raised a Christian, I shall no longer hesitate to say so.

Picture Sources:

Von Michelangelo -Übertragen aus de.wikipedia nach Commons durch Roberta F. mithilfe des CommonsHelper., 9. September 2007 (original upload date), Original uploader was Nitramtrebla at de.wikipedia, Gemeinfrei,

Von Atelier/Werkstatt von Lucas Cranach der Ältere - Autor/-in unbekannt, Gemeinfrei,

Von Ji-Elle - Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Von Hartmann Schedel - Eigener Scanlanguage: Latin, Gemeinfrei,

Von Niedersächsischer Meister - The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. ISBN: 3936122202., Gemeinfrei,

By NASA/WMAP Science Team - Original version: NASA; modified by Cherkash, Public Domain,

Some text sources in addition:

Link Chesterton:


I think we can only view things in our direct reality and logically there must be a God/Creator, as the idea of something being created from nothing (big bang-immaculate conception) is ridiculous and we do not see this in our reality.

If God has given things their vitality, it is nevertheless beyond his control how they develop in particular, because such is the nature of the living. It behaves unexpectedly and unpredictably just as it behaves predictably.

For me this is the big question, are all our decisions already pre-programmed in and we are just following the script? Or do we really decide our own fate?

the idea of something being created from nothing (big bang-immaculate conception) is ridiculous and we do not see this in our reality.

A good point you make, thank you.

I just jiggled with this very notion while reading other related sources, like this one.

Atheists have not felt compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing for no reason at all; rather they regard the universe itself as a sort of factually necessary being: the universe is eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible. As Russell neatly put it, " . . . The universe is just there, and that's all."

This came after the paragraph where this was said:

John Hick: a necessary being is an eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible being.

My own thoughts I just finished in a text file. But since you pointed towards this exact topic, allow me to forward them to you:

How, in the face of the universe, one can conceive of it as "just there", as if talking about a pebble one happens to stumble upon, says more about the unwillingness to be amazed than about the fact that one could not also questioningly call "an entity" a "universe". Since the universe seems unreal - even from the earthly limited perspective. Both in its mental grasp and when one gazes into the gigantic starry sky at night.

In this way, one can also understand oneself as "simply there" and not feel any astonishment or wonder about what is "normal", namely one's own birth just like the births of others. But the very fact that the self-evident, when one pauses, can suddenly become something mysterious, downright inexplicable, is what one can call an "inspiration", which suggests that such a "spirit" wants to be a divine spark. Those who find it unimpressive that this inspiring spark simply comes to visit, or ascribes it to their own genius, fail to realise that everything an adult human being has ever thought has always been thought by others, often more educated than oneself. And that "thought" itself, and thus the discipline of thought, is not called a "discipline" for nothing. Who would deny that theological thinking was and is not a high discipline, if he takes the manifold writings of the theological sources close to his mind?

For me this is the big question, are all our decisions already pre-programmed in and we are just following the script? Or do we really decide our own fate?

I would like here to answer with a question:
How relevant is this question to you when you have to make an important decision of conscience in your life (who to marry, for example, or how to bury someone who has died, for example, or if you want to be a father, or other significant things)? How do you advise yourself on things that set a particular course in your life?

I would first say that we dont know what we are or where we are and this is the biggest conspiracy in our current time. There is a huge effort in the mainstream to stop us from exploring this realm and answering these fundamental questions, which is what intrigued me about your post.

I read your thoughts and your position is, we are what we are and we are just here? Is that the Solipsism philosophical idea?

How do you advise yourself on things that set a particular course in your life?

Well, this is the thing, if the multitude of different character types and events are say determined from the position of the luminaries when you are born, are our decisions pre-programmed? Therefore, being a certain starsign, I will think in a certain way and make a decsion based on my personality type. On the other hand, I feel I have some control over my decsions 😀

I think that doubt is the best proof that you have control over your life. For example, when you hear something murmuring far in the back of your mind that makes you feel uncertain about a decision, that's called a conscience, isn't it? Especially in times of crisis of a general or personal nature, the felt uncertainties are a sign of your will. It doesn't matter if you are that type or the other, I would think, if a very serious question is bothering you, does it?

Sometimes, haven't you had the feeling that you decided against your conscience and then regretted it, for example? And where you were courageous despite uncertainty, did it feel coherent? If we were totally attached to the thread of fate or to the cold determinism of biologism or materialism, we would know neither doubt nor ambiguity, I would think.

I am not a follower of solipsism. I would say that it is not at all possible that nothing exists outside of one's own consciousness. For that, I just imagine myself living alone on a deserted island or a completely deserted city (which is impossible in and of itself) - where would I learn anything from, what thoughts would inspire me and give me ideas about life? Nothing comes from me and from me alone, I depend on the consciousness of others as much as they depend on mine. Where the human standard fails, I believe in another, i.e. God's (which can also be translated as "conscience"), because after all, it would be exceedingly funny if I said a prayer that began with "Almighty Peter, ...". Then I would think of Peter, who is anything but mighty (but fallible).

There is a huge effort in the mainstream to stop us from exploring this realm and answering these fundamental questions,

Let us not being stopped but go forward to contemplate about these very questions and choose or ladies and gents wisely ;) nothing can come between the covenant between man and woman, if it is true and sincere.

which is what intrigued me about your post.

Thank you. Very much appreciate this feedback.

I would call myself a Direct Realist, I think it is the best way to approach these questions or we start going into fantasy land.

Very good point about going with your "gut feeling", usually you come to regret decsions that go against it. I guess that is because you are then remaining true to your true essence and that it aligns with your beliefs and values.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it is appreciated also.

Have a look at this text:

I recommend reading from start to finish. It's a scientific approach towards the thoughts presented how the universe came into being. It is logically structured and satisfies people with a different approach towards what can be meant by "creator".

I found it to be very entertaining as well as impressive. In particular the conclusion gives me material to argue with people who call themselves atheists.

I wouldn't know what you mean by "direct realist", though. Can you explain?

I often find it is not worth to argue with atheists as they are living in some sort of fantasy land and deny reality. If you ask them to create something from nothing, they cannot do it or show you it happening anywhere.

I thought the text was quite interesting, although quite hard to digest. I prefer to try and keep things simple. Logically, there cannot be something created by nothing. We have never seen this happen in our world ever. There are also amazing signs of creation all around us to those who would see. It is clear the world is designed and has mechanical processes from the clock above us (the luminaries), to creating the immaculate details on flowers. This doesnt just happen "by accident" lol

Whilst I also dont subscribe to the big bang theory nonsense and the ever expanding universe. The world is also clearly infinite. There can never be an end to the world. Once you reach a barrier, there must then be something else on the other side and so like a russian Matryoshka doll, a new layer after new layer. As in your text, it mentioned the law of thermodynamics and the equalisation effect. All air systems must have a barrier and therefore, once you reach one barrier, then there must be another world or system on the other side ad Infinitum. Ironically, the law of thermodynamics and the equalisation effect is the main reason that "Space" as it is presented to us does not and cannot exist. Our atmosphere would equalise with the air pressure in space.. I had to chuckle when Elon sent the car into space and the tyres should have exploded with air equalisation..

Direct realism - (from Wikipedia)- In philosophy of perception and epistemology, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are.

I think we need to trust our common senses and our direct reality, as this is the purest form of truth there is.


If Adam and Eve, as the first humans created by God, knew nothing but paradise, it must be assumed that they were simple natural creatures, similar to animals.

Hallo! @erh.germany !

While reading Genesis in the Bible, I had a different opinion from your argument!

Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear.
Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Cain told Yahweh that others would try to kill him. There were other people besides the families of Adam and Eve.

Cain's words reveal that humans at that time had built a civilized society!

Adam and Eve clearly had the intelligence and ability to build civilization from the beginning, unlike wild animals!

Sorry for my akward english! 😄

Gute Nacht!

I understand the story of Adam and Eve more as something to illustrate human consciousness (becoming aware of oneself). It deals with becoming a human being from a child to the transition to adulthood according to my interpretation.

As a child you go through the world and nothing is good or bad, everything has a potential at first. You are more animal than human (that is why I used the "animal" term).
The explanation of the world only takes place through socialisation and the first pains, often called world-pains, begin in puberty. From that point on, a person begins to experience a deeper sense of worry. Thus, the story of the first humans could be understood as a spiritual orientation guide, as an explanation of why humans have insecurity, pain, embarrassment, doubt and other conflicts affecting the mind, and insofar as they have lived paradisiacal lives until now, this time is then over at some point.

Many thousands of interpretations of the Bible are possible, and since interpretation is something intimate and personal, each person finds something different and valuable in the scriptures. That is how it should be. So thank you for your addition. I have not yet looked further into Cain and Abel.

Great to see this deep and thoughtful post. Must be some great coffee you're drinking! 😄

Let me propose two alternate views to the stories in the bible. They're not meant to be taken literal but are simple parables to get a point across about different aspect of existence such survival, security, sexuality, morality, etc. The stories don't seem to make sense because they're not meant to, as long as they get the point across.

My second view, or rather that of Isaac Newton, is that the Bible is an alchemical document. In Newton's time, alchemical documents were coded in colorful language. Newton, for instance, called antimony the "menstrual blood of the sordid whore." His notebooks are filled with fantastical passages using this secret code. When you translate them into plain language, you realize, they're just chemical recipes. He seemed to believe the Bible was a coded language for alchemical formulas, which he tried to work out from the Book of Revelations.

So, if Newton was right, then maybe Adam and Eve are code words for chemicals like mercury and gold, while the snake refers to a formula or procedure conducted on Adam and Eve (hence the flickering tongue of the snake). Seen in that light, then the story of creation is just a chemical recipe, but to create what?

Crazy, right? 😇

Splendid special blend coffee, it is :D

Thank you for coming along.

Your alternate views to the stories in the bible are highly welcomed.

The stories don't seem to make sense because they're not meant to, as long as they get the point across.

That is the nature of such stories, I suppose. They puzzle and I find puzzles worth to chew on. Since no one has absolute sovereignty of interpretation, many interpretations are what is interesting.

To get the point across contains what the writer as well as the reader thinks. And since writer and reader often do not meet in person, one writer has many different interpreters who think that a story brings the point across or doesn't do it. Many superb debates are the result of this.

Religious texts as well as religious handcraft I experience as art. That they also could be alchemical documents, I vaguely remember but wouldn't know more about it. So thank you for explaining further into it. I hope though that Newton was not right since I am very bad ad Chemistry. ;)

Whereas I don't want to see the creation story as "just a ..." for anything. I find it too fascinating for that, also and because the many thousands and thousands of subsequent writings and books inspired from the Bible would otherwise be missing to me.

but to create what?

Indeed, crazy in an inspiring way.

And since writer and reader often do not meet in person, one writer has many different interpreters who think that a story brings the point across or doesn't do it.

I think that as humans we underestimate how true and impactful this is. We use writing as a medium of communication, but writing is a slow and laborious process for both writer and reader. When I write a story, I "see" an epic event or world in my mind. I then try to put into words this imaginary experience only to completely fail as the words are linearly arranged like Roman soldiers. That is why, it's useful to add some flourishes to one's writing, so you can elicit similar feelings in the reader that you felt when you thought of the story. It might be different for technical or scientific writing, but the medium of writing is still very limited. So, you're right, interpretations of religious texts will differ from reader to reader, which is why we settle those differences with sticks and stones. 😆

Ah, that's a really good point.
Writing cannot convey real time in the same way that you, as a writer, see whole scenes and worlds in front of you in your mind. That is so true! The comparison with linearity and Roman soldiers explains the difficulty very vividly!

The gift of evoking in the reader what lives in yourself, I agree, is done through the senses-exciting phrasing, so that one thinks one not only sees a scene, but smells it, tastes it, feels it. When I am ready to be sensually addressed, it evokes these very sensations.

I think that the differences in interpretation are only tried to be cleared up with stones and sticks by those who don't even want to get involved in an interpretation that differs from their own. Yet this is the opportunity where one's own mental horizon can be overcome.

I state that such rejection comes from the fact that one's own interpretation is too fleshless and too little contemplated in one's own thinking about a metaphor/theological text and that one can assume superficiality here and an unwillingness to engage in a sporting competition regarding the art of debating.

P.S. Check this out:

You are going to love it (or so I hope:)

"Hilbert's Hotel" - wow!
Read from beginning to end! It's so much worth it.

This is mind blowing. I think that it also illustrates what we're talking about and how difficult it is to convey concepts through writing and symbols. The Hilbert's Hotel thought experiment is one way to think about the concept of infinity using mathematics and logic. It delights and surprises when we get it, but having experienced a sense of infinity in the past, I can say that both experiences differ. Now, you can take the idea of infinity and use different arrangement of symbols to convey the idea. In this case poetry:

“To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.””
― William Blake

I enjoyed this poem when I first read it, but I never "experienced it" or "grasped its meaning" until I programmed a psychedelic session with poetry and experienced a sense of infinity in this timeless moment. Only then, I felt that I truly understood that poem. And it blew my mind to the extent that I felt a ecstatic bliss when I read it again while under the influence of psychedelics. But here we have another conundrum, now I'm trying to use words to convey the meaning and experience of that internal psychological experience. Another room in Hilbert's Hotel. That is, I'm trying to use words to convey my understanding of Hilbert's Hotel by using words written centuries ago, so that I can use more words to explain an internal state to try to convey my meaning using more words. I keep moving from room to room, in a manner of speaking. It never ends and hence it's truly infinite (or fractal to use even more words and concepts) 🙃

Great that you read it!

The nature of fractals and how we visualised Mandelbrot gives the impression of infinity, but if you look, it is a constant repetition of the same process and is not transferable to reality, i.e. not to the all-sensory experience, limited to seeing alone. When I was watching it, I always had the impression of being somehow cheated when I was zoomed from the big to the small and suddenly ended up in the big again. I don't know, it was like ... stumbling ... ugh, unable to express myself here.
Because mathematics is something you can transfer from reality to the imagination, you can do such great things with it as fractals and there is no limit to mental flying.

Extasy is very seductive, isn't it. You just have to not let it wear you out. HeHe.
As for poems, the way I see it, they are a high form of contemplation and a very successful short form for what other people write epic long books for. It's truly a high art, yes.

I am in awe with minds who can come up with something like Hilbert's Hotel. I am too uneducated for that kind of logic. But glad that others were and are not. It's fantastic. I am always thrilled when I can find sources like that.

The nature of fractals and how we visualised Mandelbrot gives the impression of infinity, but if you look, it is a constant repetition of the same process and is not transferable to reality

It actually is transferable to reality. The repetition is call iteration and yes, it is self similar at different magnitudes but always slightly different. The fact that this mathematical concept is transferable to reality is the key aspect of it. Now we know that seemingly random processes like clouds, pine trees, forests, coastlines, heartbeats, brain signals, a head of lettuce, seashells, waves, even our conversation, and a multitude of non-linear dynamic processes, perhaps everything in the universe, contain fractal properties. This is the revelation of Chaos theory. It's not about chaos but order. An order that exists in that which we thought was chaos.

... or so I understand

Congratulations @erh.germany! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You got more than 7000 replies.
Your next target is to reach 7250 replies.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out our last posts:

Hive Power Up Day - November 1st 2023

I put this link in here because it fits the theme: