Eric King is back explaining to the world the TRUTH about Adam, Eve and sin. King's god created humanity way before Adam and Eve. These men and women were born into a sinful "matrix", but did not know they were sinning, but were since Satan was their creator. Apparently Adam and Eve were born into a sinful world already filled with sinners.
Imagine following a god such as that who has played done big fat cosmic joke on us all. You were deliberately born to sin so that god could cast you into the lake of fire, unless he takes pity on you and delivers you over to a Church of God. There certainly is no hope in that.
We read about the story of the “Six Days of Creation” and how God “rested on the seventh day”. This is a basic description of the re-creation of our earth’s surface after the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. I have covered in detail “The Story of Our Planet” in my articles. I have shown that Adam and Eve were to become the representatives of the entire human race. I have shown and explained that there were humans created way before Adam and Eve were and that these humans were born into a sinful matrix. They sinned because of their fallen natures. The first humans did not sin willfully the same way the Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve had been in the Garden of Eden with God “face to face” so to speak. They were given special instructions while the rest of humanity who had lived outside the Garden of Eden did not have such a special contact with the Creator. We believe that God had made Himself known to the other races but we do not yet understand just how He did so.-
At the time that Adam and Eve cam on the scene there were still sinful humans in the world. King's god had to find a special place to hide Adam and Eve from these sinners, so he created the Garden of Eden.
I have discussed in older articles the fact that Adam and Eve were placed in a protected era known as the “Garden of Eden”. They had been created under special circumstances and were separated from the rest of humanity which had survived the last Ice Age. This is key to understanding our planets true history. Adam and Eve were that last humans that God created. They were created with a special mission. They were to be obedient and not sin, and to eventually spread throughout the rest of the world their offspring. The Garden of Eden would have filled the entire earth.-
Then the idiots Adam and Eve had to go and sin and by doing so brought the "Fallen Matrix" into the Garden of Eden. That "Fallen Matrix" then bled out into the world of Satan's humans causing them to sin even more.
Because Adam and Eve sinned they brought the Fallen Matrix into the Garden of Eden. From there the Fallen Matrix bled out into the already fallen world of Satan. The SOCT Dictionary defines the “Fallen Matrix” as such:-“Fallen Matrix: The defects found throughout all of creation caused by sin. Sin is the disease which has caused defects in the whole matrix of creation. This current “program” [matrix] will be restored to perfection at the “Last Great Day” by Jesus Christ.”-
The last couple of humans to be created (Adam and Eve) were created under way different circumstances than the rest of mankind. They were also the most recent humans to be created. Adam and Eve were a special part of God’s plan. They were created in an isolated Paradise, a special garden that was blocked off from the rest of the world. They were created without physical, moral, or spiritual defects. They were created without sin. They had the opportunity to reproduce children in this special garden and the garden would have eventually expanded to fill the whole earth. This would have dethroned Satan from being the “god of this world” and it would have brought the Kingdom of God back to this earth
19 comments:
It's amazing that anyone subscribes to the Adam and Eve myth as being real!
This is also why the modern explanation by religionists of creation by evolution doesn't work.
Call it by the fancy, smancy name, "evolutionary creationism", and it still doesn't work. Why doesn't it work?
Well, because there would be no connection between the descendants (you and me) of the humans who lived 150,000 years before Adam & Eve and the descendants of Adam & Eve who were supposedly specially created some 6,000 years ago.
Unless all humans who weren't blood relations with Adam & Eve died in a worldwide flood 4,300 years ago, which they didn't, Jesus means nothing to those 'other' humans.
We know that everybody didn't die in a flood during the late bronze age because the American Indians and other peoples have been around way before then and forever afterwards.
This site is ridiculous!
We all know that Adam and Eve were CHINESE and not BLACK!
Come on now!
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
I wonder if King has actually researched both sides of this or if he just got it all from Stephen Hawking.
SH
Take the red pill.
This boy is full of Paleontological Bull Shit... He sits around in his lazy boy making up stories while real scientists are out doing the hard work of such matters.
PS Adam and Eve are myths as is most of Genesis 1-11. No, maybe all of it.
Well, he's probably trying to account for Piltdown Man (just kidding!)
Seriously, I wondered when some of the ACOGs were going to finally acknowledge the fossil records. It seems to me that Eric must have been reading some Bahai (forgot where they put their commas) literature. The Bahai teach that Adam and Eve were the first God-conscious humans, but that there were earlier specimens of human kind whose mental capabilities did not allow them to know God.
BB
Armstrongism and it's rapidly fragmenting theologies usually disparage all things Catholic, yet the differences between many COG and Catholic viewpoints are paper thin, especially when it comes to ideas that induce guilt. In this silly article, King is professing "original sin" without actually using the phrase. He prefers terminology like "sinful matrix," "fallen matrix," and "fallen natures," but heck, it's all the same thing. However, leave it to an Armstrongist to profess a Catholic doctrine with a BI spin. (I won't even attempt to address his similarities with Christian Science and Scientology.)
The stupid, guilt-inducing doctrine of original sin isn't even close to the bad news. What's the bad news? In this two-part (so far) article, King is slowly easing back into the horrendously racist parts of Herbert Armstrong's theology!
King opines that his god created 9 (why 9?) other "couples" all WITH original sin, and finally Adam & Eve, the only ones created WITHOUT original sin ("They were created without sin.") However, even without original sin, Adam & Eve turned out even worse, since they "sinned willfully," unlike their predecessors who were created sinful to start with. Despite this unpleasant failure in god's calculations, it was these genes of the 10th creation which were ordained to bear the christ child anyways. Apparently, the number 10 was the final last-ditch effort, and after that, there was no point to an 11th or 12th, etc., I guess, because the next good number to stop at was too far away. (I always knew Yahweh was a little OCD...)
So where does this bring us? It brings us to this, which King states unequivocally: "Because Adam was to become the representative of all humanity he was at first created as a sinless man. In this sense he was truly the only first real human! The way we were supposed to be. WTF??? I would be speechless, but I'm too used to Armstrongists using abysmal reasoning to reach abhorrent conclusions.
The two prior paragraphs taken together can only mean one thing: the other 9(?) "gentile" races are inferior because they were infected with original sin, and are NOT "real humans," while the Jews/Israelites (white people) are the only "real humans" who are "the way we were supposed to be"! What comes next? A follow-up article identifying the modern Israelites and then railing against the sin of miscegenating the races, or even spending too much time associating with those fallen, dark-skinned creatures dressed up to look like humans?
This is my nomination for a 2013 Armstrong Razzie Award for the STUPIDEST thing said all year.
COG-SR: Church of god—Speaking to the (white) Remnant.
Speaking of white remnants, I've long believed that when we get to know everything as it really was, we will discover some racial surprises regarding our favorite Biblical characters. Hypothetically speaking, if Adam and Eve were intended to be other than allegorical characters, they could just as well have been black or oriental as proto-Jewish.
BB
Byker Bob said...
The Bahai teach that Adam and Eve were the first God-conscious humans, but that there were earlier specimens of human kind whose mental capabilities did not allow them to know God.
Which is the same conjecture of all the evolutionary creationists that I know of. A totally invented false premise with no evidence to support it while there is a mountain (and temples) of evidence to the contrary.
The main thing is that it's a whole disconnect from Jesus of Nazareth being "the last Adam" and of course, Adam being the "first man Adam" in whom "all have sinned" and passed "death upon all men".
Without a literal Adam & Eve and everybody being literal descendants of that pair, the whole premise of Christianity fails.
Metaphors and allegories cannot sin, much less pass on the consequences. Therefore, the story in Genesis 2 - 3 has to be literally true and evolution doesn't exist or the opposite is true.
Since we know that the opposite IS true and evolution of the species DID happen, where does that leave the Bible and Christianity? Hopefully. on the shelf with the other books of ancient mythology, because that's what it is and that's where it belongs.
The ever more popular post-modern idea of "no original sin" sounds good to some people but it doesn't work. The simple reason it doesn't work is because of one simple word, "passed".
So, the re-inventors of Christianity should just throw out the old Bible and write a whole new one that agrees with their new false premises.
First, Corky, of course we know evolution happened. I personally believe that that process is a tool of God.
Secondly, how is Jesus described as having taught? Parables! Are the fictitious characters in a parable literally guilty of sin? Of course not. Those characters, however, do exemplify real people who actually have sinned, and do sin. Was Jesus literally Adam? Negatory, Chief. That is yet another bit of literary imagery.
I believe that all too often, people concoct artificial constructs, switching between literal and figurative and actually acting obtuse, just for the sake of dramatization. Perhaps that is another tactic of logic from the master logician, Aristotle.
BB
Byker Bob said...
First, Corky, of course we know evolution happened. I personally believe that that process is a tool of God.
And you know as well as I do that personally believing something doesn't make it so. But, such a belief goes against thousands of years of biblical understanding, making it a little bit late to change the story unless one is claiming to be a post-modern Apostle.
Secondly, how is Jesus described as having taught? Parables! Are the fictitious characters in a parable literally guilty of sin? Of course not. Those characters, however, do exemplify real people who actually have sinned, and do sin. Was Jesus literally Adam? Negatory, Chief. That is yet another bit of literary imagery.
It wasn't Jesus who called Jesus "the last Adam", it was Paul (1 Cor. 15:45) and no, I don't think Paul wrote this letter in parables. Jesus spoke in parables so that the Jews would not understand what he said (Matt. 13:13) and Paul is writing to his followers for the opposite reason.
Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:45, clearly calls Adam "the first man" as representative of the whole human race and Jesus is called "the last Adam" for the same reason. But, Adam cannot be the representative of the whole human race because the whole human race could not, and did not, come from Adam. Therefore, the consequences of the original sin of Adam could not have been "PASSED upon all men" (Rom. 5:12) because "all men" are not descended from Adam and he cannot be their representative any more than Jesus can be the representative of non-Christians (John 3:18; Mark 16:16) etc.
Well, Corky, what is believed in my house and what is believed in your house are two different things. My past beliefs and non-beliefs have taught me that you can either interpret in favor of the possibility of salvation and eternal life, or in favor of non- belief, and whatever that brings. I have never seen eternal death as being a bad thing. In fact, I don't even consider it to be a punishment. On the other hand, if the punishment is being compelled to live for all eternity in the absence of good, that is a big thing. There could also be universal salvation, with everything we do leading back to God. The Bible seems to offer quite a bit of latitude in interpretation of these things.
What I do know for certain is that I want the knowledge that goes beyond what man can give me.
BB
Byker Bob said...
Well, Corky, what is believed in my house and what is believed in your house are two different things. My past beliefs and non-beliefs have taught me that you can either interpret in favor of the possibility of salvation and eternal life, or in favor of non- belief, and whatever that brings.
Or, as a third alternative, to lean toward what we know instead of either one of the above. To let the evidence lead us instead of what we may choose to believe.
What I do know for certain is that I want the knowledge that goes beyond what man can give me.
Knowledge and beliefs aren't the same thing...the only knowledge that we have comes from what man has discovered and none of it came from any supernatural source that we know of and most of what was once claimed to be revealed knowledge has turned out to be wrong. Revealed knowledge has proved of its own self to be completely unreliable.
It cannot be evil nor sinful to refuse to believe in unbelievable things. Especially when there are rational, reasonable, scientific explanations that don't require the supernatural.
That's right Corky.
If a claim can't be independently verified by human beings, it isn't knowledge. If someone chooses to accept as true something that hasn't been or cannot be verified, that's a belief.
In English, common use of the words "knowledge" and "belief" are so scattered and imprecise that it's easy for the layman to think they're the same thing, however for the purposes of the practice of scientific disciplines these words must necessarily take on mutually exclusive definitions.
Even "information" that there's no disputing originated with man, yet is esoteric, secret, or privileged, such as alchemy or conspiracy theories, over the passage of time when have such things ever been proven to be reliable? What keeps such beliefs alive in the minds of many is exactly the fact that they cannot be verified, rather than the opposite.
My response to what you guys have just described and agreed upon would be that that is a human construct that is very effective in ruling out God. In the distant future, we will either know who was closer to the truth, or we will know nothing at all. I'm betting that we will be getting together in the Kingdom for some beer and chips to reminisce and have a good laugh about this. Wouldn't that be nice?
BB
Byker Bob said...
My response to what you guys have just described and agreed upon would be that that is a human construct that is very effective in ruling out God. In the distant future, we will either know who was closer to the truth, or we will know nothing at all. I'm betting that we will be getting together in the Kingdom for some beer and chips to reminisce and have a good laugh about this. Wouldn't that be nice?
Ruling out God is not the idea. It's always possible that something exists that we don't know about, but that's the thing right there, we don't know about it. We can't know about it because it isn't scientifically falsifiable - just like the thousands of other gods people have believed existed and to whom they have prayed and made sacrifices.
Yep, it'd be nice but it's unbelievable that spirit beings would be drinking beer and eating chips.
To separate what is verifiably known from what is nice, hoped for, or believed only refers to what people do with their own faculties, and makes no claims about the external environment whatsoever. If a human being is honest with himself about what he knows and doesn't know, he can never honestly use such a data vacuum to rule out anything about that which is unknown. Unknowns simply remain out of reach, about which nothing certain can be pronounced, in some cases for the present time, in other cases, for all time.
Given that one, or perhaps even many different gods exist in one unknown realm, or perhaps in many different unknown realms, and given that all such gods are omnipotent, they would be capable of moving themselves out of the unknown section of society's categorization system, and over into the verifiably known section. I think the onus and responsibility properly ought to rest upon all such deities to place themselves solidly into society's verifiably known category, as opposed to its unknown category, and that we mere mortals should not jump the gun, usurp this responsibility that isn't ours, or assume that any particular deity is so incapable that they must rely upon us do this for them, thus creating a special case exception in our categorization system to make up for this, I guess, Achilles heel in their otherwise complete omnipotence?
I'm betting that we will be getting together in Valhalla to engage in valiant bloodsport all day, while in the evening those who died gloriously in battle that day will be resurrected to join those who missed out, and we'll all gather in Odin's Hall to feast upon whole roast animal carcasses, bottomless pitchers of mead, and upon beautiful wenches until daybreak, when we get to do it all over again! Then we can reminisce and have a good laugh about this. Heck, maybe we could even have some chips. Wouldn't that be nice?
But seriously, I wish there were a Yahweh. I agree it's a nice idea. But to step beyond into my own personal estimate, I've come to place where I think the available data doesn't tend to point toward an external reality in that general direction. If there really were a Yahweh, I think this world and this universe would necessarily be a very different sort of place. At the very least, I think he would manifest his existence in ways that could not be misinterpreted to those who were honestly seeking him. The fact that for me he never did means to me that if there is a Yahweh, for some reason I was never in the running for his salvation promises in the first place, so I, individually, never actually had anything to be gained or lost by being a xian or not being a xian. I gave it the first half of my life and it didn't pan out, so I'm going to do something else with the other half. But still, I'm honest about not knowing, and about not being able to rule anything out. But by that same token but I am simply incapable of ruling anything in either, or making special exceptions for ideas just because I think they're nice ones. I would know I was just bullshitting myself, so it wouldn't work at this point.
"But by that same token but I am simply incapable of ruling anything in either, or making special exceptions for ideas just because I think they're nice ones. I would know I was just bullshitting myself, so it wouldn't work at this point."
Same here. Well said.
The "wouldn't it be nice" syrupy sales pitch belies an inherent lack of substance for the argument.
It's phony schmaltz.
Post a Comment