Adam and Eve Were the First Reincarnated Humans

Thank you @Ella S.

I love your slogan... 'Utilitarian Logician'. :cool:

I am an Engineer by trade, so I love Logic.
 
Base12 said:
What I mean by literal, is that I believe the Tabernacles and Temples in the Bible are actual scale models of the Human Body. Of course, when we look at the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, we do not see obvious body parts like a head, legs, arms, feet, toes, etc. We see a tent like structure with certain objects within and without such as the Candlestick and Ark of the Covenant.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Other people have drawn far-reaching conclusions from the description of the tabernacle as well. In Rabbinical Judaism, the setting up/taking apart of of the Tabernacle are paralleles to the 6 days of creation and the 6 "work days" of the week, with the assembled tabernacle standing for the day of rest from creative/construction work and hence used to illustrate the kinds of work not permitted on Shabbat? For example, "ploughing" and "watering" and derived activities are discussed along the lines of raising a crop of certain plants used to dye the curtains. @RabbiO please correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything.
 
Base12 said:
Thank you @Ella S.

I love your slogan... 'Utilitarian Logician'. :cool:

I am an Engineer by trade, so I love Logic.
Click to expand...

I almost became an engineer. My grandfather was an engineer before he retired. I took some engineering courses. I have a healthy respect for the engineering method and use it quite a bit in an informal sense. I think it's just as important to learn as the scientific method.

I've actually studied formal logic. Mostly symbolic logic, both deductive and inductive (including statistics), but also computational logic. It's the one field I have some amount of expertise in, although I've been strongly considering going back to college when I have the money and getting a degree in logic.

Although, such a degree doesn't really have a lot of use, I would enjoy going into research projects on the side. I'm probably more familiar with logic than people who get those degrees, though, since I self-teach a lot through the free online resources given by Ivy League schools. It would be an easy A. I just don't have the money yet.
 
That is awesome @Ella S.

Indeed, the Scientific Method is something I wish the Church would do more often... lol.
 
Base12 said:
I wish to share some discoveries I have made regarding Reincarnation in the Bible. To keep things simple however, I will just focus on the very first Humans to be Reincarnated. They are Adam and Eve.

Of course, the average Christian would scream “BLASPHEMY!” upon hearing this. The reason they do this is because they are 'told' not to take certain verses literally.

Here is a perfect example…

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Some are told that the word ‘Day’ is literal, as in twenty-four hours or less. The phrase ‘Surely Die’ however, is then changed into something non-literal to hide Reincarnation from the masses. Often it is changed to ‘Spiritually Die’.

Note that there is no such thing as ‘Spiritual Death’ in the Bible. Again, this is a made-up term to hide Reincarnation from the masses.

Some are taught the opposite. They are told that the phrase ‘Surely Die’ is definitely literal, however the word ‘Day’ is then changed to ‘a long period of many years’.

Thus, the Christian is allowed two choices generally…

#1) Day = Literal and Surely Die = Not Literal

or...

#2) Day = Not Literal and Surely Die = Literal

Note that it is perfectly acceptable to choose either ‘Day’, or 'Surely Die’, as being literal. But! If you choose both 'Day' and 'Surely Die' as being literal, you will be forever deemed a ‘Heretic’ and ‘Blasphemer’, a ‘Devil’, etc.

This brings us to option #3, which is to simply believe the entire verse is literal without changing anything…

#3) Day = Literal and Surely Die = Literal

And because almost every person that studies the Creation Account never bothers to even consider option #3, they have no idea in the world that an utterly incredible lesson is being taught.

Not only did Adam and his Wife die physically after partaking the Forbidden Fruit, on that very day, but they were also REINCARNATED with new bodies that were different then what they had before.

As astonishing as all of this sounds, it is all there in the original text. Nothing added, nothing changed. No Book of Enoch or outside sources of information has been inserted.
Click to expand...

God created human beings in the beginning of the first phase of creation (Kruta Yuga), in which all the human beings were just following the instructions of God like the robots following the programme fed in to the machine heads. In such stage, there is no freedom of soul. All the instructions from God were always exceptionally good and there is no bad information. There is no need of knowing good and bad when the brain is totally surrendered to God (Tameva sharanam gachcha... Gita).


Once you have full faith in God, your idea will be that whatever is said by God must be good. You will not verify the word of God through your analysis and examine whether it is good or bad. God takes the total responsibility of soul in such total surrender (Yogakshemam... Gita). This Adam and Eve represent the males and females of the humanity existing in Kruta yuga, in which total surrender from one side and total responsibility from the other side exists. They must abide to the word of God whatever it may be.


The concept of God here is that a totally surrendered soul need not have the knowledge of good and bad when the soul is simply following the word of God without any trace of freedom. When freedom is given to the soul, then, there is a need of exposure of good and bad through exposure of scripture and the soul has freedom to decide to choose good or bad. When this situation comes, the responsibility of God goes away and this is said by God to them.


The tree of knowledge of good and bad was created by God since the time has come to give freedom to the soul. Adam and Eve violated the word of God based on the freedom of soul only. Change from continuous trend is inevitable in the nature. The change from the trend of continuous total surrender has already come in the minds of the souls and hence God wants to give freedom to the souls to relieve them from the stress of continuous specific trend. It is the will of the divine Father only to give freedom to His children on one side and on the other side is also warning them to be careful about the bad.


Giving freedom is inevitable and at the same time, the warning of God withdrawing His responsibility to protect them is also paining the heart of the divine Father. Do not forget that such tension also gives entertainment to God and do not misunderstand God as the unfortunate victim of the tension! Full freedom and total responsibility of protection do not go hand in hand. Since freedom is decided by God, the warning is given so that human beings read the ethical scripture of God and be careful in selecting good.


In the stage of freedom, the additional problem is the pollution of scripture and deep analysis is to be done to isolate the word of God from the insertions done by human beings affected by Satan. Adam and Eve were also affected by Satan. Satan appeared as sweet and good like the insertion in the divine scripture. They followed the advice of Satan as the word of God due to incapability in the analysis.
 
Hi, and welcome to Interfaith :)

dattaswami2 said:
In the stage of freedom, the additional problem is the pollution of scripture and deep analysis is to be done to isolate the word of God from the insertions done by human beings affected by Satan. Adam and Eve were also affected by Satan. Satan appeared as sweet and good like the insertion in the divine scripture. They followed the advice of Satan as the word of God due to incapability in the analysis.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the "pollution of scripture", in as much that translation and interpretation carry imperfect human understandings that need to be considered.
Regards Adam & Eve, however, they blatantly chose satan [a created being] over Almighty God, their Creator.
A big mistake. We humans are always making them.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Hi, and welcome to Interfaith :)


I agree with you about the "pollution of scripture", in as much that translation and interpretation carry imperfect human understandings that need to be considered.
Regards Adam & Eve, however, they blatantly chose satan [a created being] over Almighty God, their Creator.
A big mistake. We humans are always making them.
Click to expand...
OK.
One should not take everything in the literal sense. The inner sense must be grasped. The deep sense is always expressed in a simple way so that it can be conveniently understood by the majority of the common people.

The sin of Adam and Eve entering humanity must be taken in the inner sense. It means that humanity has always been committing sins from the beginning, due to its inherent nature. This is the actual sense and this concept is explained as the sin of first couple entering into the whole of humanity.

If one make the mistake of taking the very first concept too literally, then millions of such foolish questions about a variety of concepts appear. One thing is to be clearly understood: the sin committed by one soul cannot enter into another soul.
 
Being born in nature forces man to have to kill to sustain his own life -- even drinking water kills other microscopic creatures living in the water. We are born to kill from the womb. But we are also Spirit, and to me the sin is for the dimension of nature to declare itself independent of the greater dimension of Spirit that contains and surrounds and 'weaves' nature?
 
God's angels cannot interfere with man, unless by man's invitation. If I turn my back (on Spirit) I deny myself?
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Being born in nature forces man to have to kill to sustain his own life -- even drinking water kills other microscopic creatures living in the water. We are born to kill from the womb. But we are also Spirit, and to me the sin is for the dimension of nature to declare itself independent of the greater dimension of Spirit that contains and surrounds and 'weaves' nature?
Click to expand...
You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food. God has given enough vegetable food that contains all the ingredients present in the non-vegetarian food. After all, the source of ingredients of any flesh is only vegetable kingdom only. Eating the non-vegetarian food is not a sin because same ingredients exist in both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods. But, you have to kill a living being for the sake of non-vegetarian food. The killing is the greatest sin.

You may argue that you have not killed the living being directly. Such argument cannot stand. Since you are eating the non-vegetarian food, the living being is killed. You are responsible for its killing. Therefore, you are the principle shareholder of the sin.

There is nothing wrong if you eat a living being after its natural death. In Hinduism, there is a sect of people called ‘Kapalikas’, who eat the dead living beings. Therefore, they do not acquire sin.

The tsunami is always due to anger of God since you are killing the living beings present in water for food. The earthquakes are due to killing of living beings that exist on the earth. God in the form of Buddha and Mahavir preached the non-violence and severely opposed the killing of living beings.

God in some other human forms might have followed the practice of non-vegetarian food in order to join with non-vegetarian people so that, certain other higher aspects to be preached might have been taken into consideration. That does not mean that God has encouraged the killing of living beings through non-vegetarian food.

He might have kept silent on this issue in order to give importance to other serious issues. God follows the ignorance of the students in order to become friendly with them. To control a running bull, you have to run along with it for some distance before controlling it.

All these are the basic concepts of nivrutti, which are the core of pravrutti. By following the ethics of pravrutti, you will avoid God becoming furious with you. Then, through nivrutti, you can please God. On one hand, you are making God furious by not following the ethics of pravrutti and how can you please God through nivrutti simultaneously?
 
dattaswami2 said:
You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food.
Click to expand...
Well, this is the Abrahamic board and Abrahamic scripture says otherwise.

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Leviticus 11:1-47 elaborates further, spelling out which animals were created to be consumed.

dattaswami2 said:
There is nothing wrong if you eat a living being after its natural death.
Click to expand...
Abrahamic scripture strictly forbids this.

Leviticus 22:8
That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith, I am the LORD.

I myself do not eat red meat, not for religious reasons, but in deference to my wife's faith. She's Hindu. Her religious tradition does not forbid the consumption of fish and poultry however.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Well, this is the Abrahamic board and Abrahamic scripture says otherwise.

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Leviticus 11:1-47 elaborates further, spelling out which animals were created to be consumed.


Abrahamic scripture strictly forbids this.

Leviticus 22:8
That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith:

I myself do not eat red meat, not for religious reasons, but in deference to my wife's faith. She's Hindu. Her religious tradition does not forbid the consumption of fish and poultry however.
Click to expand...

God said in the Veda that the solid earth generated plants and food is generated from plants. This clearly means that God is categorically saying that human beings must take vegetarian food only prohibiting nonvegetarian food. Some people say that even plants have life and hence, the vegetarian food must be also non-vegetarian food. It is true that plants have life due to respiration (inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon-dioxide).

Respiration is only an inert mechanical process and not awareness at all. Food (Annamaya kośa) and respiration (Prāṇamaya kośa) are inert only and have no awareness. Only awareness (mind or Manomaya kośa and intelligence or Vijñānamaya kośa) can undergo suffering when harmed. Hence, sin does not come when a plant (a Botanical example) is eaten. Sin comes only when birds, animals etc., (zoological examples) are eaten. You can find neuro-spots (awareness) even in unicellular amoeba of zoology, but not in multicellular tree of botany.

Some people say that there are some responses from plants for some actions, which indicate awareness in plants also. This is only falsity of cause through illusory inference (Hetvābhāsa). On seeing smoke, we infer fire, but on seeing fog smoke, the inference of fire becomes false.

Even in the inert field, some actions appear as if the actions are guided by awareness. Newton said that there will be equal and opposite reaction for every action, which applies to inert items also and this does not mean that there is awareness in such items to react with vengeance!

In a living zoological example, not only response to certain action is found, but also, the nervous system that causes motivation of awareness is physically found. In a Botanical example, such nervous system is not found even though certain actions and reactions are found leading us to the illusion of presence of awareness.

In both botanical and zoological examples, the response of the reaction to action is common like the smoke and fog are one and the same water in the state of vapour. But, in a zoological example, the nervous system is found practically like fire is found through smoke. In a Botanical example, the nervous system is not found like the fire not found in the case of fog smoke.
 
Eating plants is killing living beings...

Always interesting to take arguments to their extended confusion.

Jains have issues with this eh?
 
dattaswami2 said:
God said in the Veda that the solid earth generated plants and food is generated from plants.
Click to expand...

I have tremendous respect for the Veda, but again, this is the Abrahamic board. Abrahamic scripture says meat may be consumed. There are many different faiths and beliefs represented on IO. We do our best to respect that and not preach to one another. Please take a moment to review our code of conduct, item #2 in particular. https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/7047/

Meanwhile, if you'd like to discuss what the Veda says regarding meat consumption, I'd suggest starting a separate thread in the Hindu section. I'm sure many would find it interesting.
 
Every breath we take kills tiny aerobic living microbes. Every time we drink water we kill tiny creatures living in the water. Vegetarians try to minimise harming other life, but no human being avoids it completely. Imo
dattaswami2 said:
The tsunami is always due to anger of God since you are killing the living beings present in water for food. The earthquakes are due to killing of living beings that exist on the earth.
Click to expand...
What about the vegetarians and the babies and the innocent animals killed by the tsunamis and earthquakes? Why did God kill them?
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Every breath we take kills tiny aerobic living microbes. Every time we drink water we kill tiny creatures living in the water. Vegetarians try to minimise harming other life, but no human being avoids it completely. Imo
What about the vegetarians and the babies and the innocent animals killed by the tsunamis and earthquakes? Why did God kill them?
Click to expand...
Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophil. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.


Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr.Bose.

The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita). They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated.

Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee or one lakh rupees from your pocket.

The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).
 
Namaste Jesus said:
I have tremendous respect for the Veda, but again, this is the Abrahamic board. Abrahamic scripture says meat may be consumed. There are many different faiths and beliefs represented on IO. We do our best to respect that and not preach to one another. Please take a moment to review our code of conduct, item #2 in particular. https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/7047/

Meanwhile, if you'd like to discuss what the Veda says regarding meat consumption, I'd suggest starting a separate thread in the Hindu section. I'm sure many would find it interesting.
Click to expand...
While killing the animal, the animal undergoes tremendous pain and agony hence it is a sin. There is no sin in eating a naturally dead animal. The sin comes due to the killing process and the tremendous pain underwent by that animal. When our finger cut due to blade we run to hospital to bandage it in such a case how much pain that animal undergoes during its killing?

God Jesus is the most compassionate God. Will He allow His created living beings to get killed this way and eaten?
God Jesus told not to kill. If one kill they will be killed in return to undergo the pain underwent by that animal.
 
dattaswami2 said:
Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophil. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.


Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr.Bose.

The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita). They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated.

Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee or one lakh rupees from your pocket.

The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Good points
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top