Adam & Evil

[citizenkyle]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this. My apologizes to the mods if it is not. Anyway...

For those who consider the Adam & Eve account to be a historical narrative, I'd like to get your perspective on a question. Did Adam & Eve have *any* knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit? A rudimentary moral compass perhaps?

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 10:59 AM
citizenkyle:

Not sure if this is the right forum for this. My apologizes to the mods if it is not. Anyway...

For those who consider the Adam & Eve account to be a historical narrative, I'd like to get your perspective on a question. Did Adam & Eve have *any* knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit? A rudimentary moral compass perhaps?

An interesting question. At the very least, they must have had a notion of the value of obedience versus the penalty for disobedience, otherwise, God's warning to them would have been meaningless. Matthew Henry has an interesting take on the tree itself that perhaps lends some insight to your inquiry:

it was intended to teach the practical knowledge of good and evil, that is, of duty and disobedience; and it would prove the experimental knowledge of good and evil, that is, of happiness and misery. In these senses, the name of the tree was a warning to them not to eat of it; but he [the serpent] perverts the sense of it, and wrests it to their destruction, as if this tree would give them a speculative notional knowledge of the natures, kinds, and originals, of good and evil.

Now, if Henry is right - and I think he is - then Adam and Eve clearly had the ability to learn practical moral values and the consequences of good and evil.

Additionally, if they were not already free moral agents, then the Fall itself would be meaningless, since a person with no moral understanding at all can hardly be penalized for moral misbehavior.

[geebob]

Everything they knew was good.

Also, it is reasonable to say that they knew what evil was, disobedience from God, but they did not have that knowledge in the hebrew sense which implies not just cognitive recognition but also relationship.

[citizenkyle]

02-27-2003 @ 10:46 AM
geebob:
Also, it is reasonable to say that they knew what evil was, disobedience from God, but they did not have that knowledge in the hebrew sense which implies not just cognitive recognition but also relationship.

Can you elaborate on the distinction between cognitive recognition and relationship?

[citizenkyle]

02-27-2003 @ 10:41 AM
johnransom:
An interesting question. At the very least, they must have had a notion of the value of obedience versus the penalty for disobedience, otherwise, God's warning to them would have been meaningless. Matthew Henry has an interesting take on the tree itself that perhaps lends some insight to your inquiry:

Now, if Henry is right - and I think he is - then Adam and Eve clearly had the ability to learn practical moral values and the consequences of good and evil.

Additionally, if they were not already free moral agents, then the Fall itself would be meaningless, since a person with no moral understanding at all can hardly be penalized for moral misbehavior.

Then, I suppose the questiuon is: how did the eating of the fruit actually impact Adam & Eve's knowledge? Why did they then become ashamed of their nakedness (disregarding the odd reaction of a nude husband and wife all alone in a garden feeling shame)?

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 12:03 PM
citizenkyle:



Then, I suppose the questiuon is: how did the eating of the fruit actually impact Adam & Eve's knowledge? Why did they then become ashamed of their nakedness (disregarding the odd reaction of a nude husband and wife all alone in a garden feeling shame)?

In and of itself, not at all. The tree's fruit does not have some mystical quality to it that imparts knowledge when eaten; instead it is simply a fruit tree which for reasons of testing is forbidden to the first couple. Thus the only knowledge they gain is experiential ("experimental" in Henry) as opposed to theoretical ("notional"), which is the exclusive knowledge of God - the particular kind of knowledge that the serpent was promising them. That is, they did it, so now they know what disobedience feels like.

As for covering up their nakedness, this is something of an acted metaphor. It is not the nakedness per se that they are ashamed of (and in fact the Bible does not say that they were). At Genesis 2:25 they are naked and unashamed; they are in obedience to and communion with God and therefore have nothing to hide. At Genesis 3:7 they are no longer in obedience and communion and do have something to hide. The covering up of their bodies is a childish and futile attempt to hide their sin from God. Remember also that shame in the Bible is a social condition, not a personal feeling; specifically, the condition of having one's trangression exposed.

[citizenkyle]

02-27-2003 @ 01:31 PM
johnransom:
In and of itself, not at all. The tree's fruit does not have some mystical quality to it that imparts knowledge when eaten; instead it is simply a fruit tree which for reasons of testing is forbidden to the first couple. Thus the only knowledge they gain is experiential ("experimental" in Henry) as opposed to theoretical ("notional"), which is the exclusive knowledge of God - the particular kind of knowledge that the serpent was promising them. That is, they did it, so now they know what disobedience feels like.

Ok. It seems you are saying the following:
The tree of knowledge was just a generic fruit tree, undistinguished from any other tree, except that God had placed on a ban on it. Thus eating from the tree had no impact on Adam & Eve other than it was the first time they (humans) had disobeyed God.

If so, what about the tree of life? If the same rules apply to the tree of life then why does God say "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." And what is reasoning behind placing the cherubim armed with a flaming sword to guard a generic fruit tree?

[dizzle]

Hey Kyle, your courtesy and attitude are always so refreshing. This area is generally more for "in house" disputes amongst Christians, so I am going to move this thread to the Religion 101 section. Yes, it is a gray area, and this is judgment call on my part.

[geebob]

I don't know if cognitive recognition is what I want. The western view of knowledge is that it is true justified belief. I'm suggesting that Adam and eve knew of evil in this sense. The hebrew view of knowledge implies experience, intimacy, and/or relationship. For example, we read that Adam knew eve and she begat cain (or something like that).

[citizenkyle]

02-27-2003 @ 02:49 PM
geebob:

I don't know if cognitive recognition is what I want. The western view of knowledge is that it is true justified belief. I'm suggesting that Adam and eve knew of evil in this sense. The hebrew view of knowledge implies experience, intimacy, and/or relationship. For example, we read that Adam knew eve and she begat cain (or something like that).

Ok. Let's use the nomenclature of "Western knowledge" and "Hebrew knowledge" then. Would you suggest that eating the fruit endowed Adam and Eve with Hebrew knowledge? If so, was the fruit a mystical agent in affecting this change?

[Socrates]

John MacArthur made the comparison between God's and probably the pre-Fall human couple's knowledge of evil, and an oncologist's knowledge of cancer. But after Adam and Eve disappeared, the knowledge of evil by the first human couple was like a cancer sufferer's knowledge of cancer.

[George Blaisdell]

Citizen writes:

> Let's use the nomenclature of "Western knowledge" and "Hebrew knowledge" then. Would you suggest that eating the fruit endowed Adam and Eve with Hebrew knowledge? If so, was the fruit a mystical agent in affecting this change?

Tantalizing question... The only way to KNOW evil is to be one with it, just as the only way to know God is to be one in Him. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve did not know evil, or even about evil. They wanted evil so that they could be like God independently of God. Sound like autobiography?

It is...

Us westerners would hire Gallup to do a poll to find out what evil is, and then affirm the cognitive contents of their mind based upon that poll, or on some other subject-object type of scientific investigation. The Hebraic person would say that if you want to know evil, you do evil... The problem is, as Adam and Eve discovered, getting back from the evil of the tree of BOTH is not possible - God had to do a rescue for us from sin, and we must abide in His faith...

The difference between the two is ontological - One is real knowledge, the knowledge that a football player has of football, and the other is investigative at arm's length...

My 2 cents anyhows...

geo

geo

[Mikeb]

citizenkyle:

I don't know that I consider it to be an historical narrative, I consider it to be a narrative explanation of how history began.

Does that count?

If it does then the answer to your question is NO.. Adam and Eve had absolutely no knowledge of Good and Evil before eating the poison tree. In the act of eating the deadly fruit they created free will, knowledge, and the horrid charnel house we call human history.

The explanations that call it the Fall or the Original Sin.. are from inside the charnal house, trying to understand it according to categories that have no application.

[Sauron]

02-27-2003 @ 09:41 AM
johnransom:

Now, if Henry is right - and I think he is - then Adam and Eve clearly had the ability to learn practical moral values and the consequences of good and evil.


Genesis says that they did not know good from evil before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. But then their eyes were open, and they knew good from evil.

GEN 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

That implies that before they ate, they had no concept of good or evil. That being the case, then how could they know it was "wrong" to disobey? They did not have a concept for disobedience, or an understanding that it was evil.

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 11:53 PM
Sauron:



Genesis says that they did not know good from evil before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. But then their eyes were open, and they knew good from evil.

GEN 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

That implies that before they ate, they had no concept of good or evil. That being the case, then how could they know it was "wrong" to disobey? They did not have a concept for disobedience, or an understanding that it was evil.

It says no such thing. The first clause of God's tirade here is ironic. If it were not, then this statement would imply that the serpent had told the truth, which obviously it did not. Moreover, it is quite clear that Adam and Eve did not become gods through their sin.

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 03:30 PM
citizenkyle:



Ok. It seems you are saying the following:
The tree of knowledge was just a generic fruit tree, undistinguished from any other tree, except that God had placed on a ban on it. Thus eating from the tree had no impact on Adam & Eve other than it was the first time they (humans) had disobeyed God.

If so, what about the tree of life? If the same rules apply to the tree of life then why does God say "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." And what is reasoning behind placing the cherubim armed with a flaming sword to guard a generic fruit tree?

Same deal, but on the flip side. God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life. Since God is not a liar, then this has to continue to be true even after the transgression, Thus Adam and Eve cannot be allowed anywhere near it, because if they could manage to grab some of the fruit God would be obliged to keep them alive forever.

[citizenkyle]

03-01-2003 @ 07:57 PM
johnransom:
It says no such thing. The first clause of God's tirade here is ironic. If it were not, then this statement would imply that the serpent had told the truth, which obviously it did not.

Why exactly is this obvious?

03-01-2003 @ 07:57 PM
johnransom:
Moreover, it is quite clear that Adam and Eve did not become gods through their sin.

Does the passage actually indicate that they would've become Gods though? Might we understand that they became *like* God with regards to the specific attribute of knowing good and evil? Is such a reading unreasonable?

[johnransom]

03-02-2003 @ 11:49 AM
citizenkyle:



Why exactly is this obvious?

It would go rather agaisnt the grain of the entire context of the story if the serpent had told the truth, don't you think? It's pretty much an axiom of the story that the serpent is a liar (which is confirmed in later statements in the Bible, of course).



Does the passage actually indicate that they would've become Gods though? Might we understand that they became *like* God with regards to the specific attribute of knowing good and evil? Is such a reading unreasonable?

No, you miss my point. My point was that this was the serpent's deception - conning Adam and Eve that they would become gods if they ate the fruit. If they had become gods, or even merely "like" gods - then this would not have been a deception, but merely an incitement to rebellion, which need not be deceptive. However, the text is clear that there was a deception. So the necessary conclusion is that there was never any chance of them becoming gods or godlike.

[George Blaisdell]

> Then, I suppose the questiuon is: how did the eating of the fruit actually impact Adam & Eve's knowledge? Why did they then become ashamed of their nakedness (disregarding the odd reaction of a nude husband and wife all alone in a garden feeling shame)?

There is an ancient theologumenon in Orthodoxy that holds that Adam and Eve were clothed in the radiance of God's Glory and Light, and that their existence was not all that fleshy. And that the death they suffered in their eating of the forbidden fruit was their loss of this clothing of radience and righteousness - That being 'right' [dik- in the Greek] with God was evidenced in their being clothed in God's Holy Light... And their nakedness was the loss of this radiance, which accounts for their shame, and not their embarassment at seeing each other's genitals..... God then gave them clothing of skin... The very skin we now have, for we do not have the radiance of God, for we are dead and dying in our sins...

And they now do indeed KNOW good and evil, as do we, for we do evil thinking we are doing good, and this only when we are not doing evil out of sheer malice...

geo

[Sauron]

03-01-2003 @ 06:57 PM
johnransom:



It says no such thing.

Yes it does; I just quoted it for you. Sheesh.


The first clause of God's tirade here is ironic.


No, it isn't. Why would God need to use irony here? There's no indication from the text, or the context, that this was ironic speech. And considering whom God was talking to in this passage (angels? the Trinity?), what point would irony have served?

I realize you're claiming that God is just joking here, because otherwise you would dead-end in a problematic contradiction. But your explanation is desperate and not workable.


If it were not, then this statement would imply that the serpent had told the truth, which obviously it did not.


Huh? Not obvious at all. The serpent DID tell the truth about the fruit, and what it would do for them: their eyes were opened, and they knew good from evil. That's why it was called "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" -- precisely because it would give knowledge of good and evil.

GEN 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


Moreover, it is quite clear that Adam and Eve did not become gods through their sin.

Wrong. The serpent didn't say that they would BECOME gods; he said that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

[Captain Ochre]

03-02-2003 @ 03:02 AM
johnransom:



Same deal, but on the flip side. God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life. Since God is not a liar, then this has to continue to be true even after the transgression, Thus Adam and Eve cannot be allowed anywhere near it, because if they could manage to grab some of the fruit God would be obliged to keep them alive forever.

Hi, John.

There was one tree from which Adam and Eve were forbidden to partake.
I don't think that the idea that A&E ate from the tree of life prior to eating from the tree of knowledge should be ruled out--iow, perhaps only continually eating from that tree would sustain the lives of the terminally naughty.

[George Blaisdell]

Sauron writes:

> The serpent DID tell the truth about the fruit, and what it would do for them: their eyes were opened, and they knew good from evil. That's why it was called "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" -- precisely because it would give knowledge of good and evil.

The serpent told the truth?

Good Grief! The serpent lied.

He said 'eat the forbidden fruit and you will become as God, knowing good and evil.' Now the fact is that this is a lie, for when they did indeede eat of this fruit, they died that very day - Unless you are arguing that becoming dead is the same "as God"...

The truth is that knowing good and evil would cause their death, because knowledge is ontological, not merely epistemic, and they were far too 'young' in their development in God to yet be able to handle both good and evil... There is a really good "what if" argument that states that had they NOT eaten of this forbidden fruit, Christ would have still incarnated, so as to divinize human flesh, but would have not had to die on the cross that we should overcome death...

Your argument that the serpent told the truth is actually an argument showing the METHOD of deception, whereby the LIE is concealed in an apparent truth that is then 'sold' to the 'mark' [to use con artist terminology] who acts on it so that the snake can get the victim's possession [our souls...].

The serpent didn't say that they would BECOME gods; he said that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

"As gods"??? (':bonk:')

They died that day, losing the radiance of living in the garments of God's Holy Truth, and were given by God's grace the clothing of skins of flesh, and labors and pains, that they should have a means to find later recovery in Christ... You see, it is even a lie to believe that "as gods" means "knowing good and evil" - For God is only good...

Unless you believe in a "good and EVIL" God...:no:

geo

[johnransom]

03-03-2003 @ 12:33 AM
Captain Ochre:



Hi, John.

There was one tree from which Adam and Eve were forbidden to partake.
I don't think that the idea that A&E ate from the tree of life prior to eating from the tree of knowledge should be ruled out--iow, perhaps only continually eating from that tree would sustain the lives of the terminally naughty.

You've been sipping martinis with those Angels too long, Cap'n; your brains are fried! This was exactly what I meant. I think it very likely that they did eat from the tree of life prior to the Fall.

[johnransom]

03-03-2003 @ 04:06 AM
George Blaisdell:

The serpent told the truth?

Good Grief! The serpent lied...

Thanks, George; excellent way to explain it.

[johnransom]

03-03-2003 @ 12:20 AM
Sauron:


Yes it does; I just quoted it for you. Sheesh.

Yeah, but you misunderstood it.



No, it isn't. Why would God need to use irony here? There's no indication from the text, or the context, that this was ironic speech. And considering whom God was talking to in this passage (angels? the Trinity?), what point would irony have served?

No indication exists only if you assume that the truth is being told here, which from the context it very clearly is not. And the point of irony is for emphasis, to highlight the futility and stupidity of the sin. Do you also think that angels (and the ultimate audience - all humanity down through the ages) are incapable of recognizing irony for what it is? Absurd on its face.

I realize you're claiming that God is just joking here, because otherwise you would dead-end in a problematic contradiction. But your explanation is desperate and not workable.

Who said anything about joking? There is nothing necessarily funny about irony. And the problematic contradiction is on your side, in that you have to explain away how and why the serpent would be portrayed as a truth-teller...



Huh? Not obvious at all. The serpent DID tell the truth about the fruit, and what it would do for them: their eyes were opened, and they knew good from evil. That's why it was called "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" -- precisely because it would give knowledge of good and evil.

...which you immediately go on to claim. The only group I know of who make such a claim are the Mormons. And now it is you who are reading data into the text. There is NOTHING in the text to show that the tree had any supernatural qualities. We know three things about it: i) it was a fruit-bearing tree; ii) it was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; and iii) eating its fruit was banned by God. Does it not occur to you that Adam and Eve realized their sin after eating the fruit precisely because they discovered that they had not gained the kind of knowledge they had expected? They expected abstract knowledge (like God's); what they got was experiential knowledge (like the serpent's).


Wrong. The serpent didn't say that they would BECOME gods; he said that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

A distinction without a difference, frankly. Being "as a god" can only mean having the qualities of a god, which in turn means being a god. Unless you argue that the serpent meant that they would be god-like only in this one quality of knowing good and evil, which I submit is a subtlety that probably would have escaped Adam and Eve.

In any event, there is irony here too, in that they were in fact more "god-like" before the Fall than after, being without sin or death.

[Sauron]

Yes it does; I just quoted it for you. Sheesh.


Yeah, but you misunderstood it.



No, I didn't. You simply don't like the straightforward reading, so you try to manufacture a work-around that conforms to your pre-formed opinion of what theology the text should support.



No, it isn't. Why would God need to use irony here? There's no indication from the text, or the context, that this was ironic speech. And considering whom God was talking to in this passage (angels? the Trinity?), what point would irony have served?


No indication exists only if you assume that the truth is being told here,which from the context it very clearly is not.


Wrong.

First, there is no indication whatsoever of ironic speech, whether or not a person assumes the truth is told. There are no textual clues, no indications in the Hebrew text, no evidence from commentaries or mishnah, there is nothing - and you have certainly failed to produce any supporting evidence. In fact, you wouldn't even be suggesting such a silly thing as "ironic speech" - except that you believe the serpent must have lied about that part, to Adam and Eve. That forces you to look for a way to take the straightforward comment by the Hebrew god and make the plain and obvious reading invalid.

Secondly, if we were to assume that this was ironic speech, then we can also assume that part B of that verse is likewise ironic:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Right?

Thirdly, the truth is being told - the eyes of the two people were opened. Here's more proof that their eyes were opened - just as the serpent said would happen:

GEN 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

And finally, read this passage in the Amplified Bible:

22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live [2] forever--

Does that sound like anyone engaged in wry sarcasm to you?

Here's the kicker: the lie, according to conventional theology, came in when the serpent said, "ye shall not surely die". But the first part of the serpent's statement, that the fruit would open their eyes - that part was true. A theologian I read once said, "the best way to hide a lie, is to clothe it with a partial truth". That's exactly what the serpent did here.

And this is why your "ironic speech" excuse is so ridiculously wrong. Your only "indicator" of ironic speech here is your a priori bias, caused by your faulty interpretation of this verse. It never occurred to you that the serpent could have told the truth in one thing, yet lied in another. So you created this claim of "ironic speech".



Wrong. The serpent didn't say that they would BECOME gods; he said that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

A distinction without a difference, frankly.


Frankly, you're wrong. Having one ability of a god, or one attribute, does not make someone a god. If that were the case, then angels would be gods - since they share some of the attributes of the judeo-christian god.

The fact that Item or Person A shares one attribute of Item or Person B doesn't mean that A equals B.


Being "as a god" can only mean having the qualities of a god, which in turn means being a god.


Wrong. The attribute comparison is restricted to a single attribute.

If I say, "Be like Mike - wear your own genuine Chicago Bulls jacket!" Do you really think that putting on a jacket is going to make anyone into Michael Jordan?

Your position is patently absurd. In fact, the only way that it can stand up is if being able to tell good and evil was the singular and defining attribute of a god.

Do you believe that it is?

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 06:57 AM
johnransom:

...which you immediately go on to claim. The only group I know of who make such a claim are the Mormons.


The fact that you have limited exposure to other christian viewpoints is well established.


And now it is you who are reading data into the text. There is NOTHING in the text to show that the tree had any supernatural qualities.


Wrong. We have the testimony of your God.

GEN 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.

If it wasn't a tree of knowledge of good and evil, why do you suppose that God referred to it as "the tree of knowledge of good and evil"?




We know three things about it: i) it was a fruit-bearing tree; ii) it was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; and iii) eating its fruit was banned by God.


So your claim is that God, who owned the garden, mislabeled the tree. Either that, or the writer of genesis made up a name for it. Or maybe God lied about what the tree's fruit would do.

It's so obvious when fundamentalist/literalists paint themselves into a corner - they start trying to defend patently absurd positions.

:bonk:

[johnransom]

It seems Sauron is wearing his ring around his neck, choking off the blood flow to his brain:

03-03-2003 @ 10:30 PM
Sauron:
No, I didn't. You simply don't like the straightforward reading, so you try to manufacture a work-around that conforms to your pre-formed opinion of what theology the text should support.

Really? As it happens, I hadn't even thought about this until Kyle asked the original question. So who's developing "pre-formed opinions" now?

In any event, there is no work-around to be generated for my view. The heterodox - and textually absurd - view is that the serpent was telling the truth. Yours, IOW.

Wrong.

First, there is no indication whatsoever of ironic speech, whether or not a person assumes the truth is told. There are no textual clues, no indications in the Hebrew text, no evidence from commentaries or mishnah, there is nothing - and you have certainly failed to produce any supporting evidence. In fact, you wouldn't even be suggesting such a silly thing as "ironic speech" - except that you believe the serpent must have lied about that part, to Adam and Eve. That forces you to look for a way to take the straightforward comment by the Hebrew god and make the plain and obvious reading invalid.

No evidence, eh? Well, let's check Matthew Henry:

Sentence being passed upon the offenders, we have here execution, in part, done upon them immediately. Observe here,

I. How they were justly disgraced and shamed before God and the holy angels, by the ironical upbraiding of them with the issue of their enterprise:

"Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil! A goodly god he makes! Does he not? See what he has got, what preferments, what advantages, by eating forbidden fruit!"

This was said to awaken and humble them, and to bring them to a sense of their sin and folly, and to repentance for it, that, seeing themselves thus wretchedly deceived by following the devil’s counsel, they might henceforth pursue the happiness God should offer in the way he should prescribe. God thus fills their faces with shame, that they may seek his name, Ps 83:16. He puts them to this confusion, in order to their conversion.

Hmm, see that one word I highlighted in bold? Apparently I'm NOT the only one who thinks this.

Secondly, if we were to assume that this was ironic speech, then we can also assume that part B of that verse is likewise ironic:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Right?

:bonk: Wrong. Just because the judgement is rendered ironically, does not imply that the sentence should also be so rendered.

Thirdly, the truth is being told - the eyes of the two people were opened. Here's more proof that their eyes were opened - just as the serpent said would happen:

GEN 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

:bonk::bonk: This has already been explained to you. Their eyes were opened because as soon as they ate the fruit and nothing happened, they realized they had been conned. From that realization they further realized their own disobedience. How much simpler does it have to be?

And finally, read this passage in the Amplified Bible:

22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live [2] forever--

Does that sound like anyone engaged in wry sarcasm to you?

A big so what? The Amplified Bible is hardly designed to render nuance. It's for clarity. And what in the amplification actually changes anything I said anyway? Nothing.

Here's the kicker: the lie, according to conventional theology, came in when the serpent said, "ye shall not surely die". But the first part of the serpent's statement, that the fruit would open their eyes - that part was true. A theologian I read once said, "the best way to hide a lie, is to clothe it with a partial truth". That's exactly what the serpent did here.

:argh: For a start, that was the second part, and it is given as the reason they would not die. That alone tends to suggest that it is a lie, because if it were true then the former part - that they would not die - would logically also be true.

And this is why your "ironic speech" excuse is so ridiculously wrong. Your only "indicator" of ironic speech here is your a priori bias, caused by your faulty interpretation of this verse. It never occurred to you that the serpent could have told the truth in one thing, yet lied in another. So you created this claim of "ironic speech".

Of course he could have; he simply didn't. As for a priori bias, I suggest you look in the mirror, since you have clearly not bothered to examine the overall ramifications of my argument, which, as I have already shown, is hardly original with me.

Frankly, you're wrong. Having one ability of a god, or one attribute, does not make someone a god. If that were the case, then angels would be gods - since they share some of the attributes of the judeo-christian god.

Oh really? Pray tell. Are they omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, perfect, uncreated? I think not.

The fact that Item or Person A shares one attribute of Item or Person B doesn't mean that A equals B.

In the case of qualities that are unique to Person B, yes it does.

Wrong. The attribute comparison is restricted to a single attribute.

In the case of attributes that cannot exist in isolation from other attributes, the restriction is moot.

If I say, "Be like Mike - wear your own genuine Chicago Bulls jacket!" Do you really think that putting on a jacket is going to make anyone into Michael Jordan?

No. According to the film, I'd have to put his shoes on to do that.:say peas!:

The analogy is of course absurd. Micheal Jordan is in no way comparable to God.

Your position is patently absurd. In fact, the only way that it can stand up is if being able to tell good and evil was the singular and defining attribute of a god.

Do you believe that it is?

Actually, given the above, yes I do, since it implies all the other attributes of God. And the same is true of all his other attributes; God is conveniently circular that way (as an uncaused cause of necessity must be).

The ring apparently has a tendency to shrink:

03-03-2003 @ 10:35 PM
Sauron:
The fact that you have limited exposure to other christian viewpoints is well established.

I think we can safely say the same of your exposure to reason and logic.

Wrong. We have the testimony of your God.

GEN 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.

If it wasn't a tree of knowledge of good and evil, why do you suppose that God referred to it as "the tree of knowledge of good and evil"?

:doh: Because that's what he called it. And from that, so it was. Once again, we are talking experiential knowledge, not abstract knowledge.

So your claim is that God, who owned the garden, mislabeled the tree. Either that, or the writer of genesis made up a name for it. Or maybe God lied about what the tree's fruit would do.

No, no and no. Get with the program.

It's so obvious when fundamentalist/literalists paint themselves into a corner - they start trying to defend patently absurd positions.

Explain how this is a "literalist" position, when you have been charging me with finding textual clues where none apparently exist? Now that is a patently absurd position.

[stevencarrwork]

03-02-2003 @ 03:02 AM
johnransom:



Same deal, but on the flip side. God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life. Since God is not a liar, then this has to continue to be true even after the transgression, Thus Adam and Eve cannot be allowed anywhere near it, because if they could manage to grab some of the fruit God would be obliged to keep them alive forever.

Gosh, who would have thought God would work so hard to keep people from eternal life!

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 02:31 PM
johnransom:



You've been sipping martinis with those Angels too long, Cap'n; your brains are fried! This was exactly what I meant. I think it very likely that they did eat from the tree of life prior to the Fall.

So don't they have eternal life, now?

Or does eating from the tree of life only let you live until you take further nourishment , and you die if you don't eat any more?(rather like most fruit trees in fact)

[johnransom]

Ah, the Deputy Minister of Literalistic Anachronism weighs in:

03-04-2003 @ 03:25 AM
stevencarrwork:
Gosh, who would have thought God would work so hard to keep people from eternal life!

Well, he didn't do anything beyond posting a guard, did He? Doesn't seem too high on the exertion scale to me. And who are you to criticize God for enforcing a punishment?

03-04-2003 @ 03:29 AM
stevencarrwork:
So don't they have eternal life, now?

Or does eating from the tree of life only let you live until you take further nourishment , and you die if you don't eat any more?(rather like most fruit trees in fact)

:argh: Show me where Adam and Eve are walking around right now then. Here's a hint: THEY DIED. For Adam that's recorded at Genesis 5:5.

And of course Steven's pitiful reading comprehension rears its ugly head again. To anyone with a functioning mind my statement was quite clear that it was God and not the tree itself that gave eternal life. The tree was merely symbolic of the promise. Not that I expect you to understand ANE concepts of symbolism in contract agreements.

[stevencarrwork]

03-04-2003 @ 02:58 PM
johnransom:

Ah, the Deputy Minister of Literalistic Anachronism weighs in:


:argh: Show me where Adam and Eve are walking around right now then. Here's a hint: THEY DIED. For Adam that's recorded at Genesis 5:5.

And of course Steven's pitiful reading comprehension rears its ugly head again. To anyone with a functioning mind my statement was quite clear that it was God and not the tree itself that gave eternal life. The tree was merely symbolic of the promise. Not that I expect you to understand ANE concepts of symbolism in contract agreements.

So , if I understand you rightly, if Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life, then God would have to give them eternal life, because God had promised that.

And you claim that Adam and Eve did eat of the tree of eternal life.


And that God did not keep his promise, because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of eternal life and are now dead.

It appears God also has problems with understanding promises in contract agreeements. 'Eat of the tree of eternal life and I promise you will have eternal life, (if I feel like it)'

John Ransom is not your real name, is it?

[stevencarrwork]

John Ransom wrote
'God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life.'

And John Ransom proclaims that Adam and Eve very likely ate from the tree, and that God did not provide them with eternal sustenance of life.

John Ransom is calling God a liar.

[George Blaisdell]

Steven writes:

>> Thus Adam and Eve cannot be allowed anywhere near [the tree of life], because if they could manage to grab some of the fruit, God would be obliged to keep them alive forever.

> Gosh, who would have thought God would work so hard to keep people from eternal life!

It is sin that God will not abide...

Separation from God is death...

Union with God is Life...

Knowing [ie union with, ontological knowing, as in (the degraded sense of) 'Adam *knew* Eve' after the fall, except infinitely more so, and not mere epistemic mental affirmation, which is but fallen human thinking...] This is the knowing that John means when he says "Knowing You the one True God, and His Son, Jesus Christ" IS eternal life...

Interestingly, there is no scripture telling us whether or not Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life prior to their eating of the forbidden fruit. If we assume that they [Adam and Eve] were growing in God in the Garden, perhaps it was the eating of this tree that would be bringing confirmation to their having [freely] eaten of other fruits.

These two, Life, and Knowledge of Good and Evil, were in the very center of the Garden... But the latter had to be avoided lest first man and first woman die...

And indeed, we find ourselves now with divided hearts, in our very centers, and without Life, until the advent of Christ, when we turn from all that is evil, and turn toward Him who IS eternal life, and are entered [baptized] into Him, and abide in Him...

The banning we have from the Garden of Eden is a great blessing by a loving and man-befriending God, for had He not so banned us, our separation from Him, our death, is assured of not becoming permanent - In effect, our death is not given 'eternal life', as it would have been had we been allowed to abide there. [The graspings of the dying are legion and legend...]

Instead we enter into a world of pleasure and pain and short lives from which most of us are happy to depart, either in sorrow or anger or despair of the decrepitude of old age and the departure of all that gives pleasure, and the remainder of only pains... We are given this life of good and evil, in which we ARE good and evil, and we die in our sins in this life of good and evil, except that for some of us, the really lucky ones, who through no merit of their own, find eternal life freely given in Christ...

You see, there is no eternal life in sin, in separation from God. There is only death, and God has graciously not allowed us to eternalize this death in ourselves, but to find Life in Christ...

A divided heart, a heart of good AND evil, is a dying heart... Such a heart is scattered everywhere in the cares and concerns of this soulish and flesh minded and fallen world... And it needs be gathered from its scattering, this divided heart of ours, and returned to its center, in Christ, away from all that is not of Him...

geo

[johnransom]

03-04-2003 @ 09:06 AM
stevencarrwork:
So , if I understand you rightly, if Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life, then God would have to give them eternal life, because God had promised that.

And you claim that Adam and Eve did eat of the tree of eternal life.

And that God did not keep his promise, because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of eternal life and are now dead.

It appears God also has problems with understanding promises in contract agreeements. 'Eat of the tree of eternal life and I promise you will have eternal life, (if I feel like it)'

:duh: It appears in fact that you have a problem with the concept of conditions in contracts. The eternal life was contingent on them not eating from the other tree.

John Ransom is not your real name, is it?

My anonymity or lack thereof is none of your concern.

03-04-2003 @ 09:11 AM
stevencarrwork:

John Ransom wrote
'God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life.'

And John Ransom proclaims that Adam and Eve very likely ate from the tree, and that God did not provide them with eternal sustenance of life.

John Ransom is calling God a liar.

Saying the same thing a different way does not make it any truer. It merely shows that insanity does not preclude creativity.

[stevencarrwork]

03-04-2003 @ 04:29 PM
johnransom:



:duh: It appears in fact that you have a problem with the concept of conditions in contracts. The eternal life was contingent on them not eating from the other tree.



I shall quote what John Ransom wrote

''God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life.'

There is nothing whatever about a condition in what John Ransom (not his real name, of course) wrote. Not a thing, nothing , nichts, rien....

In fact, John Ransom made clear that even *after* eating from the other tree, Adam and Eve could still have had eternal life if they ate from the tree of life (which is why God had to guard it), so there goes the condition that they must not eat from the other tree. John Ransom has stated that even after eating of the other tree, Adam and Eve could still have obtained eternal life.


However, it is best to see what the Bible says , rather than what John Ransom says

Genesis 3:22 'And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'

There is no condition whatsoever in this verse, despite what John Ransom says.

John Ransom also says this was a contract. Perhaps he can tell us where God makes a contract with Adam and Eve in that verse, which is not even addressed to Adam and Eve.

[ItalianGold]

I have a question. How long after creation did the Fall occur?

I mean, did Adam and Eve have ANY time to enjoy the perfect world? Or were they created and BAM, God sent the snake and started the Fall?

[johnransom]

03-04-2003 @ 06:06 PM
stevencarrwork:
I shall quote what John Ransom wrote

''God has previously designated this tree as the tree of life, meaning that if they ate from the tree God would provide them eternal sustenance of life.'

There is nothing whatever about a condition in what John Ransom (not his real name, of course) wrote. Not a thing, nothing , nichts, rien....

Yet again Steven Carrdork (not his real name, but it ought to be) shows his pitiful lack of reading comprehension or any ability to think rationally. the condition of which I speak is, self-evidently to any person of moderate intellect, the whole point of this thread, namely, that eating of the tree of knowledge of G&E would lead to death. Now that would tend to preclude eternal life, wouldn't it? Since any person of moderate intellect is assumed to be able to hold the gist of the thread or at least be competent to navigate back and refresh their memory, I saw no reason to restate the obvious. Silly me, I forgot to make allowances for Steven Carrdork and his ilk.

In fact, John Ransom made clear that even *after* eating from the other tree, Adam and Eve could still have had eternal life if they ate from the tree of life (which is why God had to guard it), so there goes the condition that they must not eat from the other tree. John Ransom has stated that even after eating of the other tree, Adam and Eve could still have obtained eternal life.

Stop spinning in circles, Steven Carrdork, you're making us all dizzy.

However, it is best to see what the Bible says , rather than what John Ransom says

Genesis 3:22 'And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'

There is no condition whatsoever in this verse, despite what John Ransom says.

:doh: Who ever heard of inserting conditions after the contract is complete? Whatever Steven Carrdork does for a living, I hope he's not involved in negotiations of any kind.

John Ransom also says this was a contract. Perhaps he can tell us where God makes a contract with Adam and Eve in that verse, which is not even addressed to Adam and Eve.

:doh: :doh: :doh: OK, Steven Carrdork, explain to me where I said that the contract was in this verse?

[johnransom]

03-04-2003 @ 06:35 PM
ItalianGold:

I have a question. How long after creation did the Fall occur?

I mean, did Adam and Eve have ANY time to enjoy the perfect world? Or were they created and BAM, God sent the snake and started the Fall?

A matter of some debate, IG. The most extreme YECers would claim that the Fall happened on the sixth day of creation. There seems to me no textual basis for this, and it seems a mighty short time to be in the garden before getting hoodwinked. At the other end of the spectrum, the next temporal marker in Genesis is Adam's age (130) at the birth of Seth, but this is after the murder of Abel, which means that Cain and Abel had both grown to adulthood before this event. Since they were both born outside the garden, that puts Adam at a maximum about 110 when he left the garden.

Frankly, I don't see any doctrinal need for a specific position on this, but it would seem to make sense that Adam and Eve were in the garden long enough to understand its benefits, and from that the enormity of their banishment.

[Sauron]

In any event, there is no work-around to be generated for my view.


Sure there is. You need to work around the fact that God admits in Gen 3:26 that man and woman have had their eyes opened.



The heterodox - and textually absurd - view is that the serpent was telling the truth. Yours, IOW.


Wrong on both counts. In fact, you'll find that my view is very orthodox, and much better supported by the text than yours is.

It is you, after all, who has to pull the unsupported idea of "ironic speech" out of the clear blue, to dig yourself out of a hole created by your viewpoint.



First, there is no indication whatsoever of ironic speech, whether or not a person assumes the truth is told. There are no textual clues, no indications in the Hebrew text, no evidence from commentaries or mishnah, there is nothing - and you have certainly failed to produce any supporting evidence. In fact, you wouldn't even be suggesting such a silly thing as "ironic speech" - except that you believe the serpent must have lied about that part, to Adam and Eve. That forces you to look for a way to take the straightforward comment by the Hebrew god and make the plain and obvious reading invalid.

No evidence, eh? Well, let's check Matthew Henry:
[etc]

Hmm, see that one word I highlighted in bold? Apparently I'm NOT the only one who thinks this.


Matthew Henry has been dead for 300 years; I doubt that he ever represented the cutting edge of scholarship.

Besides, I never said you were alone, in trying to create such a work-around - there are other people in the world with interpretations that they would like to force onto the text; happens all the time.

It's still not in the text, however.

Have a look at this. From the Jamiesson, Fauset, Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.


22. And God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us--not spoken in irony as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, "Behold, what has become of the man who was as one of us"! Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil--how sad his condition now.
and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life--This tree being a pledge of that immortal life with which obedience should be rewarded, man lost, on his fall, all claim to this tree; and therefore, that he might not eat of it or delude himself with the idea that eating of it would restore what he had forfeited, the Lord sent him forth from the garden.


Secondly, if we were to assume that this was ironic speech, then we can also assume that part B of that verse is likewise ironic:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Right?

Wrong. Just because the judgement is rendered ironically, does not imply that the sentence should also be so rendered.


Why not?

So far, it appears that you arbitrarily decide where irony starts, and where it ends, in order to keep your limp hypothesis afloat.

The stronger argument is that neither the first, or the last part, is ironic at all. That man did acquire a knowledge of good and evil - but that by knowing good from evil, it also opened to door to death.


Thirdly, the truth is being told - the eyes of the two people were opened. Here's more proof that their eyes were opened - just as the serpent said would happen:

GEN 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

This has already been explained to you. Their eyes were opened because as soon as they ate the fruit and nothing happened, they realized they had been conned.


Sorry; that isn't what it says. Your "explaining" is better described as "shoe-horning"; you're trying to force-fit your interpretation here, but the straightforward text won't support it. The text cleary says that their eyes were open.

The text doesn't say, "the eyes of them were opened; and they knew they had been deceived, and were remorseful". And it doesn't say, "the eyes of them were opened; and they knew they had been deceived; and they were royally pissed at the serpent." It says that as soon as their eyes were open, they knew the shame of being unclothed.

If you are right, and they merely realized that they were conned, then why in the world would they care about being naked? Why would nakedness (a moral wrong) bother them in the least? What connection is there between being conned, and suddenly realizing that they're naked? Answer: none.

Your interpretation is in serious trouble.


And finally, read this passage in the Amplified Bible:

22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live [2] forever--

Does that sound like anyone engaged in wry sarcasm to you?

A big so what? The Amplified Bible is hardly designed to render nuance. It's for clarity.


What a laugh. The Amplified Bible is designed PRECISELY to render the correct nuance. Pay attention to the bold below:

http://www.biblesoftdirect.com/amplifiedbible1.html

The first complete Bible produced by The Lockman Foundation was the Amplified Bible, published in its entirety in 1964 (updated in 1987). The Amplified Bible is a translation that, [b]by using synonyms and definitions, both explains and expands the meaning of words in the text by placing amplification in parentheses and brackets after key words or phrases. This unique system of translation allows the reader to more completely grasp the meaning of the words as they were understood in the original languages. Through multiple expressions, fuller and more revealing appreciation is given to the divine message as the original text legitimately permits.



And what in the amplification actually changes anything I said anyway? Nothing.


Everything. Had "irony" been present anywhere in the original text, the Amplified Bible (designed to bring forth such nuances) would have surfaced such a nuance for the reader. But it didn't surface any such nuance, because IT SIMPLY ISN'T IN THERE.



Here's the kicker: the lie, according to conventional theology, came in when the serpent said, "ye shall not surely die". But the first part of the serpent's statement, that the fruit would open their eyes - that part was true. A theologian I read once said, "the best way to hide a lie, is to clothe it with a partial truth". That's exactly what the serpent did here.

For a start, that was the second part, and it is given as the reason they would not die.


Flatly incorrect. It was not given as the reason they wouldn't die; knowing good from evil doesn't prevent one from dying. Sheesh. What kind of sense would that make?

It was instead offered as the real, true outcome of eating the fruit, as opposed to what God had earlier told them the outcome of that action would be. "God said that? But you know that's not true. The real reason is that God doesn't want you to know good from evil, and be as gods". It plainly says so:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



That alone tends to suggest that it is a lie, because if it were true then the former part - that they would not die - would logically also be true.


Your conclusion is wrong, because your premise is wrong.


Frankly, you're wrong. Having one ability of a god, or one attribute, does not make someone a god. If that were the case, then angels would be gods - since they share some of the attributes of the judeo-christian god.

Oh really? Pray tell. Are they omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, perfect, uncreated? I think not.


Irrelevant. The question is about one attribute - knowing good and evil. Angels know good and evil. By your tortured logic, they must be gods. Same thing with demons. And satan. Wanna argue that they're ALL gods, just because they know good from evil?


The fact that Item or Person A shares one attribute of Item or Person B doesn't mean that A equals B.

In the case of qualities that are unique to Person B, yes it does.


Knowledge of good and evil is not unique to God, as you've just had demonstrated to you.


Wrong. The attribute comparison is restricted to a single attribute.

In the case of attributes that cannot exist in isolation from other attributes, the restriction is moot.


But since knowledge of good and evil is not such an attribute, your objection is moot.


The analogy is of course absurd. Micheal Jordan is in no way comparable to God.


The analogy is precisely on target. You're trying to say that sharing one attribute of Person A is the same as being identical to Person A. Your statement is the absurdity here; not the analogy.



Your position is patently absurd. In fact, the only way that it can stand up is if being able to tell good and evil was the singular and defining attribute of a god.

Do you believe that it is?


Actually, given the above, yes I do,


Then you're wrong - angels, Satan, and demons all possess it.

[johnransom]

Sure there is. You need to work around the fact that God admits in Gen 3:26 that man and woman have had their eyes opened.

Not at all. I have explained how that passage is to be read. It is you who are performing eisegesis – you are assuming that the opening of their eyes was caused by some inherent quality of the fruit. But the Bible says no such thing. As previously said, all the Bible says about the TKG&E is that it a) bears edible fruit; b) has a name; and c) eating its fruit is banned by God.

Wrong on both counts. In fact, you'll find that my view is very orthodox, and much better supported by the text than yours is.

Then prove it. Since the Biblical presumption is that Satan always lies, then this assertion needs a powerful argument.

It is you, after all, who has to pull the unsupported idea of "ironic speech" out of the clear blue, to dig yourself out of a hole created by your viewpoint. Matthew Henry has been dead for 300 years; I doubt that he ever represented the cutting edge of scholarship.

Who cares when he lived or whether he was on the “cutting edge”? What matters is merely that he was right or not. You display temporal and critical arrogance by your statement.

Have a look at this. From the Jamiesson, Fauset, Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.

22. And God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us--not spoken in irony as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, "Behold, what has become [by sin] of the man who was as one of us"! Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil--how sad his condition now.
and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life--This tree being a pledge of that immortal life with which obedience should be rewarded, man lost, on his fall, all claim to this tree; and therefore, that he might not eat of it or delude himself with the idea that eating of it would restore what he had forfeited, the Lord sent him forth from the garden.


Your own citation proves my point. For one thing you own bolded passage shows from the phrase “as is generally supposed” that JFB is consciously going against the weight of opinion here. For example, the Geneva Study Bible and John Wesley both agree with me and Henry on this. However, JFB are not claiming at all what you are. Instead, they are claiming that Adam and Eve were in fact godlike BEFORE the Fall (“who was as one of us”), and that they LOST this quality as a result of the transgression. I out it to you that this means they are to some extent in agreement with me – se my explanation two quotes below.

Moreover, JFB supports my claim that the tree of life had no supernatural qualities – according to them it was merely a “pledge” of eternal life, which in turn was the reward for obedience. By parallelism we can conclude the corresponding pledge of death for disobedience attaching to the TKG&E.

So far, it appears that you arbitrarily decide where irony starts, and where it ends, in order to keep your limp hypothesis afloat.

No, it starts and ends where the sense demands it. Irony is the opposite of what is normally expected: one would not normally expect men to become godlike; one would expect God to punish disobedience.

The stronger argument is that neither the first, or the last part, is ironic at all. That man did acquire a knowledge of good and evil - but that by knowing good from evil, it also opened to door to death.

Yes he did acquire such a knowledge. However, you continue to fail to understand the difference between experiential and abstract knowledge. Abstract knowledge of good and evil is logically only available to two entities: 1) God, who actually has abstract knowledge only of evil, because he is by definition good; and 2) any creature who has yet to sin, such as Adam and Eve before the Fall (per JFB “Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil”), but for the latter this cannot be a perfect knowledge as with God. However, since God is good, he cannot lose his abstract knowledge of evil, because he is incapable of doing evil and therefore cannot experience it. Adam and Eve, on the other hand, are so capable and therefore can lose the abstraction and replace it with experience. I think this is what JFB is trying to say.

Sorry; that isn't what it says. Your "explaining" is better described as "shoe-horning"; you're trying to force-fit your interpretation here, but the straightforward text won't support it. The text cleary says that their eyes were open.

The text doesn't say, "the eyes of them were opened; and they knew they had been deceived, and were remorseful". And it doesn't say, "the eyes of them were opened; and they knew they had been deceived; and they were royally pissed at the serpent." It says that as soon as their eyes were open, they knew the shame of being unclothed.

If you are right, and they merely realized that they were conned, then why in the world would they care about being naked? Why would nakedness (a moral wrong) bother them in the least? What connection is there between being conned, and suddenly realizing that they're naked? Answer: none.

Of course the text says their eyes were opened – I never claimed that it didn’t. What I claimed was that the fruit had no supernatural qualities to do this. In fact, it is you who are “shoe-horning” here; you are assuming that the metaphor means “the fruit passed abstract knowledge of good and evil to them”. Two problems with this – the ordinary usage of the metaphor is to imply the dawning of a realization, which fits my interpretation, not yours. Second, if this is the case, then the next statement “they knew they were deceived” makes no sense, because the fruit has done exactly what the serpent said it would.

And explain to me how nakedness is inherently a moral wrong, especially given that God saw no problem with it before the Fall. I have already explained elsewhere to Kyle how this worked.

What a laugh. The Amplified Bible is designed PRECISELY to render the correct nuance…Everything. Had "irony" been present anywhere in the original text, the Amplified Bible (designed to bring forth such nuances) would have surfaced such a nuance for the reader. But it didn't surface any such nuance, because IT SIMPLY ISN'T IN THERE.

Explain to me exactly how the expansions the Amplified Bible indulges in could possibly clarify the presence or absence of irony? It would actually have to state categorically that the passage is ironic. Would you expect it to add “Contrary to what you would expect…”? Get real.

Flatly incorrect. It was not given as the reason they wouldn't die; knowing good from evil doesn't prevent one from dying. Sheesh. What kind of sense would that make?

In and of itself, no. But the serpent was claiming that this was all that would happen. The fruit was not in addition to that somehow poisonous.

It was instead offered as the real, true outcome of eating the fruit, as opposed to what God had earlier told them the outcome of that action would be. "God said that? But you know that's not true. The real reason is that God doesn't want you to know good from evil, and be as gods". It plainly says so:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Er…isn’t that what I said? But again, it’s SA-TAN. He’s a LI-AR. It’s not that God doesn’t want this, it’s that it can’t happen.

Irrelevant. The question is about one attribute - knowing good and evil. Angels know good and evil. By your tortured logic, they must be gods. Same thing with demons. And satan. Wanna argue that they're ALL gods, just because they know good from evil?

Cite me a single Bible verse that states that angels, demons and Satan have perfect divine abstract knowledge of evil. By definition, demons and Satan cannot, since they sinned.

Knowledge of good and evil is not unique to God, as you've just had demonstrated to you.

Knowledge of the kind that is available to God is indeed unique to Him. You fail to understand the interoperation of His attributes.

But since knowledge of good and evil is not such an attribute, your objection is moot.

Again, yes it is. Explain how it is not.

Your argumentation fails on all counts, Sauron. You are now officially beating a dead horse.

[Jimmy Higgins]

02-28-2003 @ 12:53 AM
Sauron:That implies that before they ate, they had no concept of good or evil. That being the case, then how could they know it was "wrong" to disobey? They did not have a concept for disobedience, or an understanding that it was evil. Actually Good and Evil, as Johnransom said previously, refers to all knowledge in general. Its more of a pop culture term at the time. Think of it as the Taoist Yin and Yang. Its not the actual individual things being referred to, but in actuality, everything in between. To have the knowledge of good and evil was to know what God knew, it all!

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-04-2003 @ 11:57 PM
johnransom:
Yet again Steven Carrdork (not his real name, but it ought to be) shows his pitiful lack of reading comprehension or any ability to think rationally.Is the name calling really necessary? It really burdens discussion when people resort to such childish things. :bawl:

the condition of which I speak is ... that eating of the tree of knowledge of G&E would lead to death. Now that would tend to preclude eternal life, wouldn't it?This point always bothers me. God threatens death on the man and woman for breaking the one prohibition. Yet, what was death to this man and woman? Was there anyway they could fathom it? Was Paradise not Paradise? Was there death in Paradise prior to the fall? It's almost like threatening a child with a punishment they couldn't comprehend. "If you eat that cookie, I'll put you in an iron maiden!" The child, being completely oblivious to what an iron maiden was, would probably think of the punishment less and eating the cookie more.

Then there is the issue that the man and woman never die. This is somehow explained without any sort of Tanakh scripture. You call it original sin. I call it God's grace. There was no original sin. It was God's grace that saved the man and woman from dying. This grace, followed along side with man's disobedience, is the entire purpose of the pre-history Genesis stories. The Fall, Cain slaying Abel, the Flood, the Tower (or city) of Babel all include events of man's disobedience. God punishes man each time, however, shows some form of grace afterwards. Clothing the man and woman and letting them live, protecting Cain from murder, the new covanent with Noah, the covanent with Abram.

That God doesn't kill Adam and Eve literally doesn't mean it had to of happened in another way, as Christians so boldly try to justify, rather, it was a sign, the first sign of how God would help man, even when man did wrongly.

[johnransom]

03-05-2003 @ 11:42 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Is the name calling really necessary? It really burdens discussion when people resort to such childish things. :bawl:

In one sense, no. In another, most certainly. You have to know Steven's history and tactics to understand what is going on here. The point is not to call him names, but to highlight the inanity of his obsession with Internet pseudonyms as used by Christians (specifically J.P. Holding, and now, for some unexplained reason, me). Whether I am using my real name or not is no concern of his, or anyone else's for that matter. It adds nothing to the debate, and is a rather weak ad hominem. As such, and since Steven's board name is not technically his real name either, I decided to use this as a counter. Ridicule of an opponent's debate methods and arguments is a well-established practice and quite legitimate in this case.

This point always bothers me. God threatens death on the man and woman for breaking the one prohibition. Yet, what was death to this man and woman? Was there anyway they could fathom it? Was Paradise not Paradise? Was there death in Paradise prior to the fall? It's almost like threatening a child with a punishment they couldn't comprehend. "If you eat that cookie, I'll put you in an iron maiden!" The child, being completely oblivious to what an iron maiden was, would probably think of the punishment less and eating the cookie more.

Then there is the issue that the man and woman never die. This is somehow explained without any sort of Tanakh scripture. You call it original sin. I call it God's grace. There was no original sin. It was God's grace that saved the man and woman from dying. This grace, followed along side with man's disobedience, is the entire purpose of the pre-history Genesis stories. The Fall, Cain slaying Abel, the Flood, the Tower (or city) of Babel all include events of man's disobedience. God punishes man each time, however, shows some form of grace afterwards. Clothing the man and woman and letting them live, protecting Cain from murder, the new covanent with Noah, the covanent with Abram.

That God doesn't kill Adam and Eve literally doesn't mean it had to of happened in another way, as Christians so boldly try to justify, rather, it was a sign, the first sign of how God would help man, even when man did wrongly.

Obviously, there was no human death before the Fall, since Adam and Eve were the first humans. Whether there was any animal death is a matter of hot debate within the Christian community. There was certainly plant death, since they got eaten.

Your point is valid: how indeed could Adam and Eve comprehend death, if they had no experience of it? This does not even go to their maturity - whether they were childlike or adult intellectually - they simply had no point of reference if in fact there was no death in the Garden. But Eve, in her discussion with the serpent, clearly displays an understanding of the warning from God. So - either God conveniently equipped Adam and Eve with an intuitive understanding of something that did not exist, or there was indeed death before the Fall, or else death is a lot easier to grasp intellectually than you think. On this last, I'm with you; absent any way to judge this empirically, I'll go with my instinct and discard it. Of the remaining two, I tend to favor the latter option, if only because I reject young-earth creationism (among whose adherents the concept of no death before the Fall is most widely held).

I would shy away from comparing Adam and Eve to children, however. They display some childlike qualities perhaps, but then so do most adults anyway. Eve shows no evident interest in the tree until enticed by the serpent, so the suggestion that God sort of hung out a carrot is not well-grounded, IMO.

I don't rally follow what you are saying about grace and original sin. I absolutely agree with you that Adam and Eve's eternal life was dependent on God's grace, but it was categorically conditional on their continued obedience. I also agree absolutely that the Genesis stories are intended to show God's ongoing grace. But why does this preclude original sin? Indeed, "man's disobedience" was the original sin. Does it not make God's grace all the more emphatic when highlighted by man's ongoing sin?

As for the grace extended to Adam and Eve specifically, yes, they did not die the very day they sinned, in the sense that their physical existence came to an end. But they certainly began the dying process that day, in that they gave up the particular aspect of God's grace that kept them immortal. I find no need to resort to fuzzy explanations of "spiritual death", although the usual idea behind this of a rejection of God is of course valid.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-05-2003 @ 02:21 PM
johnransom:Obviously, there was no human death before the Fall, since Adam and Eve were the first humans. Whether there was any animal death is a matter of hot debate within the Christian community. There was certainly plant death, since they got eaten.I don't know of anything that would indicate animal death in Paradise, unless its hidden elsewhere in the Tanakh. As for plant death, I think perhaps I'd rather call that consumption. It would make sense for the animals, man and woman to think nothing of death while consuming the plants. While consumption certainly leads to the plant's death, I meant a vision of death where a plant just withers away and dies, for apparently no reason.

Your point is valid: how indeed could Adam and Eve comprehend death, if they had no experience of it? This does not even go to their maturity - whether they were childlike or adult intellectually - they simply had no point of reference if in fact there was no death in the Garden. But Eve, in her discussion with the serpent, clearly displays an understanding of the warning from God.True. Eve is very emphatic about the prohibition, so much so, that she pridefully extends the prohibition to including not even touching the tree. You are correct, here that she perhaps knows more of death than I previously thought, however, it didn't take much of anything for the serpent to tell her otherwise.
So - either God conveniently equipped Adam and Eve with an intuitive understanding of something that did not exist, or there was indeed death before the Fall, or else death is a lot easier to grasp intellectually than you think. On this last, I'm with you; absent any way to judge this empirically, I'll go with my instinct and discard it. Of the remaining two, I tend to favor the latter option, if only because I reject young-earth creationism (among whose adherents the concept of no death before the Fall is most widely held).In order for death to occur, that would probably mean a sustained period of time that the man and woman were in the garden, so that they could have witnessed it. Do you agree?

I would shy away from comparing Adam and Eve to children, however. They display some childlike qualities perhaps, but then so do most adults anyway.I don't know about that. The rule they broke was a small one, granted the only one, but they ate of the fruit. The man didn't kill the woman such as we see in Cain and Abel. Their reaction to being caught was like one, passing the blame onward, away from themselves. Granted, adults can do so, but its more likely a child to blame the person making the rules for breaking them, ie telling God that God gave him Eve and she ate of the fruit. The ease at which the woman and man gave in, were like one. It took little effort of the serpent for Eve to eat and then even less for Adam to.
Eve shows no evident interest in the tree until enticed by the serpent, so the suggestion that God sort of hung out a carrot is not well-grounded, IMO.Nor would that be my opinion. This story isn't about God tempting man, though it could be viewed as a significant flaw in God's plan to allow such a tree to be there in the first place. God created man to till the soil of the garden and to safekeep it. Man already had a role in the garden, so why then add such a condition? But that isn't the point of the story for sure, because then blame could be transfered onto God which would completely upset the whole point of the pre-history Genesis!
I also agree absolutely that the Genesis stories are intended to show God's ongoing grace. But why does this preclude original sin?Why it certainly does. I think that perhaps the greatest flaw in some Christian reasoning is that there was some sort of, I guess you could say "hope" with the man and woman in the Paradise. If the man and woman obey God, then we all live in Paradise. Cool beans! However, atleast as far as I understand the ideal, Adam's original sin (which I'd rather like to call, man's first sin), is not the precursor to our behavior as humans. Rather it was the man's own mind and inclination from the beginning that led to his first sin. I think that Christians have it backwards. Man's spirit led to "The Fall", "The Fall" did not lead to Original Sin.
As for the grace extended to Adam and Eve specifically, yes, they did not die the very day they sinned, in the sense that their physical existence came to an end.I don't know how many scholars would say that the scripture didn't mean the day they did it, "for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17) Any person reading the story as from the beginning would wonder why they don't die. No where does it state a symbolic death! Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion, I feel is that it was God's grace that kept death from them, though, he did ensure their eventual death by casting them from Paradise.

[johnransom]

03-06-2003 @ 10:01 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

I don't know of anything that would indicate animal death in Paradise, unless its hidden elsewhere in the Tanakh. As for plant death, I think perhaps I'd rather call that consumption. It would make sense for the animals, man and woman to think nothing of death while consuming the plants. While consumption certainly leads to the plant's death, I meant a vision of death where a plant just withers away and dies, for apparently no reason.

There’s nothing in the Bible anywhere indicating any form of death in Paradise (and Adam and Eve didn’t die there either), but there’s nothing saying it wasn’t there either. The only scriptures that really address this are usually cited as Romans 5:12 and Romans 8:20. However, 5:12 is clearly talking about humans specifically. 8:20 is less clear; most translations show this referring to the “creation”, which implies the entire cosmos, although a literal rendering is “creature”. This could be interpreted as meaning man only, but the sense suggests that the non-literal rendering is correct, and I know of no commentators who read it otherwise.

However, Romans 8:20 is talking about death through decay. This of course applies equally to animals and plants. This leads to the necessary conclusion that all creation was essentially immortal. But decay is of course not the only cause of death. Animals can get eaten, just the same as plants can (although now that I think of it, eating a plant doesn’t necessarily kill it anyway). So, in order to say that there was no animal death of any kind, you need to show that there were no carnivores in Paradise. And there are indeed those who claim this. They are usually young-earthers, but this puts them in the tricky position of apparently acquiescing to some form of evolution.

So, if there was death in the Garden, it was of a particularly violent type, and thus would have carried some force as a threat.

…In order for death to occur, that would probably mean a sustained period of time that the man and woman were in the garden, so that they could have witnessed it. Do you agree?

That is precisely the conclusion I was implying.

I don't know about that. The rule they broke was a small one, granted the only one, but they ate of the fruit. The man didn't kill the woman such as we see in Cain and Abel. Their reaction to being caught was like one, passing the blame onward, away from themselves. Granted, adults can do so, but its more likely a child to blame the person making the rules for breaking them, ie telling God that God gave him Eve and she ate of the fruit. The ease at which the woman and man gave in, were like one. It took little effort of the serpent for Eve to eat and then even less for Adam to.

Well, not all commentators think that the text presents the entirety of Eve’s discussion with the serpent. Some think it just a summary of a temptation that could have taken quite some time. But beyond that, I think you overestimate the maturity level of adults.

Nor would that be my opinion. This story isn't about God tempting man, though it could be viewed as a significant flaw in God's plan to allow such a tree to be there in the first place. God created man to till the soil of the garden and to safekeep it. Man already had a role in the garden, so why then add such a condition? But that isn't the point of the story for sure, because then blame could be transfered onto God which would completely upset the whole point of the pre-history Genesis!

I think the answer to the need for the tree is that God places great value on obedience. And if there is no possibility for disobedience, then how can obedience be demonstrated? I imagine some would see that as God tempting man rather than testing him.

Why it certainly does. I think that perhaps the greatest flaw in some Christian reasoning is that there was some sort of, I guess you could say "hope" with the man and woman in the Paradise. If the man and woman obey God, then we all live in Paradise. Cool beans! However, atleast as far as I understand the ideal, Adam's original sin (which I'd rather like to call, man's first sin), is not the precursor to our behavior as humans. Rather it was the man's own mind and inclination from the beginning that led to his first sin. I think that Christians have it backwards. Man's spirit led to "The Fall", "The Fall" did not lead to Original Sin.

I don’t know that any Christians claim there was hope in Paradise – this would be nonsensical. What is there to hope for when you already a perfect existence? Similarly, I question whether there was much faith in Paradise either, given the immediate and immanent presence of God. Which all contributes to the importance of obedience.

I don't know how many scholars would say that the scripture didn't mean the day they did it, "for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17) Any person reading the story as from the beginning would wonder why they don't die. No where does it state a symbolic death! Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion, I feel is that it was God's grace that kept death from them, though, he did ensure their eventual death by casting them from Paradise.

Actually that view is very widely held. As is the “spiritual death” view. It is your idea that is novel, in fact, and I find it intriguing. However, a symbolic death is not precluded by the text and may be intended as an assumption behind the story (as our own JPH argues) that would have been evident to Moses’ immediate readership. The idea that God’s grace is what kept them from death both before and during the Fall, the question is thus begged – what kept them alive after the Fall? And if the answer remains God’s grace, what causes Him to eventually withdraw that grace and let them die? I think the idea causes more problems than it solves.

[ItalianGold]

Aside from always wondering how long Adam and Eve lived before the Fall, I have never had a satisfactory explanation of how, in the perfect world, that serpant happened to be.

I have huge problems with accepting Genesis in any way but the most symbolic, although it doesn't appear that Moses was a deeply philosophical, analogical kind of writer. One thing that can be said for certain about Genesis. It's very unclear. It's not meant to be instructive. And no one agrees on what it means.

[johnransom]

03-06-2003 @ 02:46 PM
ItalianGold:

Aside from always wondering how long Adam and Eve lived before the Fall, I have never had a satisfactory explanation of how, in the perfect world, that serpant happened to be.

The serpent in and of itself was fine; it was Satan using it as a vehicle that caused the problem.

I have huge problems with accepting Genesis in any way but the most symbolic, although it doesn't appear that Moses was a deeply philosophical, analogical kind of writer. One thing that can be said for certain about Genesis. It's very unclear. It's not meant to be instructive. And no one agrees on what it means.

That's three things. And I disagree with the second.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-06-2003 @ 01:53 PM
johnransom:Well, not all commentators think that the text presents the entirety of Eve’s discussion with the serpent.I don't think there is any precedence for that stance. The conversation related to in Genesis seems to be complete. It has a beginning and end, and the details in the middle don't seem to be lacking any sort of necessary detail that would indicate that something was missing.
I think the answer to the need for the tree is that God places great value on obedience. And if there is no possibility for disobedience, then how can obedience be demonstrated?This confuses me. Why the additional test of obedience? "The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it." (Genesis 2:15). Man has a purpose. God can certainly see obedience by checking if the man takes care of the Garden. God does not speak of giving man a test of obedience, nor that the tree symbolised anything of test or temptation. It was as if a teenager was given the keys to the neighbors house to take care of their dog as they vacationed. They tell him not to touch their Plasma Screen TV. Do they tell him this to check for his obedience? Or is it a check on making sure the house keeps as it needs to be kept? I see no reason to see the Tree to be a check on obedience, man already has a purpose as set in Genesis 2:16 that this obedience could be judged.
The idea that God’s grace is what kept them from death both before and during the Fall, the question is thus begged – what kept them alive after the Fall? And if the answer remains God’s grace, what causes Him to eventually withdraw that grace and let them die?Well, certain death, and what would be the end of the human race would have resulted if God killed the man and woman immediately. God's grace, for allowing them to live, would certainly be in the form of letting humanity become a reality! As I stated before, God did ensure their death by having them leave the Garden, but he certainly gave them a long life, and let humanity be born.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-06-2003 @ 04:50 PM
johnransom:The serpent in and of itself was fine; it was Satan using it as a vehicle that caused the problem.Sorry to question this, but where in the Tanakh does it ever say that Satan was in the Garden?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-06-2003 @ 03:46 PM
ItalianGold:One thing that can be said for certain about Genesis. It's very unclear. It's not meant to be instructive. And no one agrees on what it means. I don't know if Genesis is unclear as it is misunderstood. I'd also say that the etiological merits of Genesis clearly show that it is meant to be instructive, though, through the device of legend. We learn why farming is tough, why birth is painful, why we speak different languages if we have the same origin, etc...

I'd agree that there is a bunch of disagreement on what Genesis is supposed to be saying, however, with a trained eye and an open mind, it becomes more obvious. With a lot of study, things fall into line. Most scholars would agree to the beautiful and rather complex, for its time, composition it has.

[George Blaisdell]

John Ransom writes:

> The idea that God’s grace is what kept them from death both before and during the Fall, the question is thus begged – what kept them alive after the Fall?

If God IS your life, you will be clothed in light, and you will live, you will be alive. Thus if you are turned toward God, which means are sensitive to God, and attuned to Him, always remembering Him in each and every action, and doing as He tells us to do, then we shall be clothed in the radiant garments of the Light of God's Grace. And indeed this was the case with Adam and Eve, so that when they turned away from God [in disobedience to Him and in obedience to the serpent], they died that very day, and as they looked upon themselves, they saw that they were naked, and this means that they no longer were clothed in the radiant robes of God's grace, and they were ashamed... And they hid themselves from the God Whose clothing they once wore, but from Whom they had turned...

You see, they did die that day, and in affirmation of that death, we find Jesus telling the disciple who wanted to follow him, who asked Him to wait a minute, because he needed to bury his father who had just died. Jesus answer was clear: "Let the dead bury the dead - You follow Me!"

We are the dead, you see - The "living" zombies feeding on the other 'living' things of the earth to stay alive as long as we can, before we are swallowed in the pit of physical death, slaves to the flesh to the end... And all of humanity since Adam has been dead, until Christ's death and resurrection - After that, our life is found in Him, whereas before it was lost in Adam...

Someone asked once if I have a "problem with predation" - And I suppose I do... We have become flesh eaters... We grow our own prey... And kill it - Yet all of creation fell with Adam, and is now groaning in travail... And I can't help but think that in the age to come, there will be no more killing of one another for food, or for anything else - That we will all be fed by God, and the lion shall lie with the lamb... In the garden, Adam and Eve but ate of fruit - Their labors were, I believe, after the fall...

geo

[johnransom]

03-06-2003 @ 08:24 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

Sorry to question this, but where in the Tanakh does it ever say that Satan was in the Garden?

Why the obsession with the OT? Unless you are a believing Jew, there is no reason to see the OT as any more authoritative than the NT, not any reason not to accept the Christian view of them as a continuous whole.

In any event, the only place where this is categorically explained in Scripture is in Revelation, at 12:9 and 20:2. I submit that this was one of those "high-context" issues that needed no clarification in the ANE and that its absence from the OT in no way suggests that this was not taken as understood by Jews throughout ancient history.

[johnransom]

03-06-2003 @ 09:00 PM
George Blaisdell:
You see, they did die that day, and in affirmation of that death, we find Jesus telling the disciple who wanted to follow him, who asked Him to wait a minute, because he needed to bury his father who had just died. Jesus answer was clear: "Let the dead bury the dead - You follow Me!"

We are the dead, you see - The "living" zombies feeding on the other 'living' things of the earth to stay alive as long as we can, before we are swallowed in the pit of physical death, slaves to the flesh to the end...

An excellent point, George, one which I had completely overlooked. A very good proof of a symbolic view. But it doesn't quite address Jimmy's idea about God's grace being the sustaining force for physical life both before and after the Fall.

Someone asked once if I have a "problem with predation" - And I suppose I do... We have become flesh eaters... We grow our own prey... And kill it - Yet all of creation fell with Adam, and is now groaning in travail... And I can't help but think that in the age to come, there will be no more killing of one another for food, or for anything else - That we will all be fed by God, and the lion shall lie with the lamb... In the garden, Adam and Eve but ate of fruit - Their labors were, I believe, after the fall...

While it is certainly true that man can exist equally well as a vegetarian or a carnivore, this is not true of other species. Predators are "optimized" for predation, from their teeth through their whole digestive systems. It is hard to see how such an animal would fare on a herbivorous diet. This then leads to the need for one of two conclusions: either a) predators did not exist before the Fall; or b) certain animals became predators after the Fall. The former requires new speciation after the Fall, the latter requires evolution. Both of these are rejected by virtually all interpretations.

Bear in mind also George that nowhere in the Bible does it say "the lion shall lie with the lamb". The actual quote from Isaiah 11:6 is thus: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." Moreover, the verse is intended to be taken figuratively, and is speaking of various types of people. That it should also be taken as a description of life in the New Jerusalem is very doubtful.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-07-2003 @ 09:28 AM
johnransom:Why the obsession with the OT? Unless you are a believing Jew, there is no reason to see the OT as any more authoritative than the NT, not any reason not to accept the Christian view of them as a continuous whole.Well, it wouldn't be incorrect to say that if an ideal is true, it would be in the Tanakh. How many things in the Tanakh are hidden until the New Testament?

Besides, if it were so obvious that Satan was a player in The Fall narrative, I just think it would have been said so just once. This is where our views seem to come up to a head. I view the pre-history of Genesis to be a show of man's original and continuing disobedience. As I showed that man was created in such a way and that it just got worse. But with this disobedience, God responded with punishment then grace. Strangely, your view seems that it is necessary for another character to enter the fold. That man wasn't just responsible for his own actions completely. That something must have made him fall. This is arbitrary and completely unnecessary. In the pre-history, Satan is completely void without a lament person's doubt after The Fall, through and into the Tower of Babel. It is certainly more likely that Satan had nothing to do with The Fall. Satan would share part of the blame, but it is clear from the Pre-history that man is to be the one at blame. Man disobeyed God. Man was evil. He decided how to act on his own.

Besides, the punishment on the serpent seems just too literal to be towards anything but an actual snake. Does Satan eat dust, crawl on his belly, have offspring (Genesis 3:14-15)? This seems too etiological to be symbolic towards something else!

...that its absence from the OT in no way suggests that this was not taken as understood by Jews throughout ancient history. So the question now is, if Satan was partly responsible for introducing sin into the world, why is it not a theme in the Tanakh? Was one of the most critical events in biblical history not important enough for disclosing the most important detail?

[johnransom]

03-06-2003 @ 08:23 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

I don't think there is any precedence for that stance. The conversation related to in Genesis seems to be complete. It has a beginning and end, and the details in the middle don't seem to be lacking any sort of necessary detail that would indicate that something was missing.

Discard the idea that the Bible was written as a comprehensive record. Even today, written and performed depictions of actual events do not present the entirety of what happened. For example, historical movies are not considered any the less accurate for abbreviating and consolidating events and even people. Indeed, we expect omission of considerable detail; how could we not if we are to cram the whole thing into two hours or less? But that does not mean the dialogue will be written in such a way as to demonstrate its own incompleteness. The precedent then is normal historical narrative.

This confuses me. Why the additional test of obedience? "The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it." (Genesis 2:15). Man has a purpose. God can certainly see obedience by checking if the man takes care of the Garden. God does not speak of giving man a test of obedience, nor that the tree symbolised anything of test or temptation. It was as if a teenager was given the keys to the neighbors house to take care of their dog as they vacationed. They tell him not to touch their Plasma Screen TV. Do they tell him this to check for his obedience? Or is it a check on making sure the house keeps as it needs to be kept? I see no reason to see the Tree to be a check on obedience, man already has a purpose as set in Genesis 2:16 that this obedience could be judged.

Actually, parents give such directions for both reasons. They want to keep the house right, but they will also want to see if the teenager can be trusted enough to be hired for future baby/house-sitting needs. Your analogy tends to work against you.

Well, certain death, and what would be the end of the human race would have resulted if God killed the man and woman immediately. God's grace, for allowing them to live, would certainly be in the form of letting humanity become a reality! As I stated before, God did ensure their death by having them leave the Garden, but he certainly gave them a long life, and let humanity be born.

This really doesn't answer the question.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-07-2003 @ 09:58 AM
johnransom:
Discard the idea that the Bible was written as a comprehensive record. The Tanakh obviously does not include every single moment from Adam to its final book. However, to suggest that stories are incomplete is a rather dangerous assumption. With this logic, what happens in the stories are almost open to any number of interpretations that need not be discussed because the stories are complete, atleast as far as the author was concerned. Take the story of Abraham going off to slay his only son Issac. Are you suggesting that there was dialogue between the two as they went to where Issac was to be killed? Certainly not, and not just because the story does not have the details, but rather it is the silence that is dramatic device for the story. The silence before the storm, so to speak. Once a person begins adding to any story as they see fit, the Tanakh becomes warped and pointless. Thats how people have been abusing it for centuries at the cost of millions of lives.
Even today, written and performed depictions of actual events do not present the entirety of what happened. For example, historical movies are not considered any the less accurate for abbreviating and consolidating events and even people.However, you are greatly underestimating the importance of the "seduction" of Eve. Its one of the most important parts of the story. 1) Snake talking to Eve. 2) Eve eating fruit. To say that we are missing the most important part of the story would be like doing a movie Pearl Harbor and neglecting to include the bombing of Pearl Harbor!

Actually, parents give such directions for both reasons. They want to keep the house right, but they will also want to see if the teenager can be trusted enough to be hired for future baby/house-sitting needs.I didn't say parents, I said next door neighbors. The main concern is the job the character is employed to do. A) The man tending the garden B) The boy checking in on the dogs. When the neighbors tell him not to touch the tv, they are doing so in order to set the rules, same as if telling him not to let anyone else into the house. They aren't setting this as an obedience test, but rather to set the rules and let their will be known. They like watching TV sitcoms in High Definition and would like to keep it that way. :D
Just as God does with the tree. It isn't a test. Its a rule. Don't have any parties while "we" are gone, Adam. It isn't a test. Its a requirement.
This really doesn't answer the question. There would be no human kind today if Adam and Eve died the moment they ate the fruit. That we are alive today would be a clear sign of God's grace! If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not too sure what could. God changed his mind. It was probably the first time, but certainly wouldn't be the last.

[johnransom]

03-07-2003 @ 02:13 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

The Tanakh obviously does not include every single moment from Adam to its final book. However, to suggest that stories are incomplete is a rather dangerous assumption. With this logic, what happens in the stories are almost open to any number of interpretations that need not be discussed because the stories are complete, atleast as far as the author was concerned. Take the story of Abraham going off to slay his only son Issac. Are you suggesting that there was dialogue between the two as they went to where Issac was to be killed? Certainly not, and not just because the story does not have the details, but rather it is the silence that is dramatic device for the story. The silence before the storm, so to speak. Once a person begins adding to any story as they see fit, the Tanakh becomes warped and pointless. Thats how people have been abusing it for centuries at the cost of millions of lives.

Actually, Abraham and Isaac is a case in point; that journey took several days. It is inconceivable that they did not talk during that trip.

The OT is full of missing details: take the proximate case of Cain and Abel's offerings. The BIble says nothing as to why God rejected Cain's offering and accepted Abel's. We simply have to fill in the details ourselves. A high-context reader has no trouble with this; evidently, Cain's sacrifice was in some way deficient. If not, to take the text at face value would imply that God was entirely capricious in his judgment.

And "abbreviated" is not synonymous with "incomplete".

However, you are greatly underestimating the importance of the "seduction" of Eve. Its one of the most important parts of the story. 1) Snake talking to Eve. 2) Eve eating fruit. To say that we are missing the most important part of the story would be like doing a movie Pearl Harbor and neglecting to include the bombing of Pearl Harbor!

Precisely the opposite; suggesting that the seduction took even longer than what is actually reportedly would tend to suggest that it was that much more significant in her eventual capitulation. You should read the second volume of C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy; it has an interesting if rather obvious allegory on this very idea.

Interestingly, my first pass at this used the movie "Pearl Harbor" as an example, but I pulled it on the basis of the movie being so bad.

[quote]I didn't say parents, I said next door neighbors. The main concern is the job the character is employed to do. A) The man tending the garden B) The boy checking in on the dogs. When the neighbors tell him not to touch the tv, they are doing so in order to set the rules, same as if telling him not to let anyone else into the house. They aren't setting this as an obedience test, but rather to set the rules and let their will be known. They like watching TV sitcoms in High Definition and would like to keep it that way. :D
Just as God does with the tree. It isn't a test. Its a rule. Don't have any parties while "we" are gone, Adam. It isn't a test. Its a requirement.

When I said parents I meant of the baby to be sat, not of the teenager. My bad for not being clear. You make a good case about the tree not being a test. Two problems, however. The first is that the tree and the rule then become entirely arbitrary; actually both trees and rules do. Also, the house-sitting analogy doesn't quite fit, because Adam and Eve are not house-sitters in the Garden. Yes, they are stewards of it, but it was expressly designed for their use, not God's, as the analogy would imply. So not looking after it as a whole works to their own disadvantage, not God's. Therefore they have personal motivation to tend it properly and obedience is not well demonstrated. Something else was needed.

There would be no human kind today if Adam and Eve died the moment they ate the fruit. That we are alive today would be a clear sign of God's grace! If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not too sure what could. God changed his mind. It was probably the first time, but certainly wouldn't be the last.

All agreed; but that still doesn't answer the question as to what would cause God to finally end his provision of grace.

[George Blaisdell]

johnransom:



> An excellent point, George, one which I had completely overlooked. A very good proof of a symbolic view.

Symbolic? What can be more real that life in God? And what can be more real than the loss of this life? And how is this loss of life not actual death, and not merely symbolic death?

They died that day...

Our problem is that we think, in our fallen state, in our diseased states and processes of mind, that we are alive, yet until we die to the world, which means until we die to death, which is what the life of this world actually is, we are truely dead...

> But it doesn't quite address Jimmy's idea about God's grace being the sustaining force for physical life both before and after the Fall.

Grace is the sustaining force of everything...

> While it is certainly true that man can exist equally well as a vegetarian or a carnivore, this is not true of other species. Predators are "optimized" for predation, from their teeth through their whole digestive systems. It is hard to see how such an animal would fare on a herbivorous diet. This then leads to the need for one of two conclusions: either a) predators did not exist before the Fall; or b) certain animals became predators after the Fall. The former requires new speciation after the Fall, the latter requires evolution. Both of these are rejected by virtually all interpretations.

The whole of creation fell with Adam, so we do not know the state of pre-fall existence... Yet we are told that all of creation groans in travail for our salvaiton... The one thing you can say about the world is that all die, and all have sinned...

The idea that the pre-fall lion received its food from God, and did not have to kill for it, does not seem to entail the necessity of some theory of evolution - Why do you think it does?

> Bear in mind also George that nowhere in the Bible does it say "the lion shall lie with the lamb".

Oh Phooey! Weener neener! Picky-picky... ':tongue:'


> The actual quote from Isaiah 11:6 is thus: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

Yes, THAT!

> Moreover, the verse is intended to be taken figuratively, and is speaking of various types of people. That it should also be taken as a description of life in the New Jerusalem is very doubtful.

What? You want scientific exegetical deductive proof? Naaaagh - It is just a respectable theologoumenon, nothing more... Just like your theory that it is to be taken figuratively, and not literally.

geo

[ItalianGold]

Jimmy:
It is certainly more likely that Satan had nothing to do with The Fall. Satan would share part of the blame, but it is clear from the Pre-history that man is to be the one at blame. Man disobeyed God. Man was evil. He decided how to act on his own

OK - which is it? Virtually every fundamentalist here says that God created Adam and Eve and the garden in a state of perfection. They didn't even know the difference between good and evil. So how could they BE evil??

And if the garden was "good" and all God's creation was good...why did He send a sneaky, seductive, talking snake to Eve? He knew what would happen! What was the purpose? If He did not want his perfect creation to know good and evil, why did he set it up so that was the inevitable result? He created Eve innocent but with a curious mind. He created the tree of the knowlege of good and evil (though people like Socrates claim Evil didn't even exist) and He created this dubious snake. Why??

I have asked what was the length of time between creation and the Fall. No one knows. Some say it happened on the 8th day. Some say years later.

Why wasn't Eve's eyes opened when she ate the fruit? After she gave it to Adam, and their eyes were opened why did their nakedness disturb them? There was nothing shameful about their bodies. They were made for each other, to procreate. Clearly this is another example of the Judeo-Christian obsession of sex as sin. It just doesn't make sense.

[johnransom]

03-07-2003 @ 11:34 PM
George Blaisdell:
Symbolic? What can be more real that life in God? And what can be more real than the loss of this life? And how is this loss of life not actual death, and not merely symbolic death?

They died that day...

A literal understanding of death is the cessation of physical existence. Any other usage of the word is therefore in some way figurative. In the phrase "Let the dead bury the dead" we have of course both usages. While your view of a deeper theological intent is of course correct, the thrust of the thread was rather more superficial.

Grace is the sustaining force of everything...

Yes, but Jimmy's argument suggested that it was applied to Adam and Eve in exactly the same way before and after the Fall. I tread lightly here for fear of sounding dispensationalist, but that strikes me as invalid.

The idea that the pre-fall lion received its food from God, and did not have to kill for it, does not seem to entail the necessity of some theory of evolution - Why do you think it does?

Because why would God create an animal specially designed to be a predator if it's not going to be a predator? Ergo, either God created the lion after the Fall (theologically untenable because of His Sabbath rest) or a non-predatory pre-Fall lion evolved into a predatory post-Fall lion (theologically untenable because it denies special creation). I suppose you could also argue that God changed the lion into a predator, but that is effectively new creation and thus also denies God's Sabbath rest.

> Bear in mind also George that nowhere in the Bible does it say "the lion shall lie with the lamb".

Oh Phooey! Weener neener! Picky-picky... ':tongue:'

George, I am surprised that you take misquoting Scripture so lightly, given the general excellence of the theology you display. While it is true that this might seem a nit-pick, I submit that it is not. From an apologetic point of view, sloppy scripture quoting does us a disservice. From an interpretive point of view, it is dangerous. This particular misquote is a very common one, admittedly not as abusive of the true text as, say, "God helps those who help themselves", but an abuse nonetheless.

> Moreover, the verse is intended to be taken figuratively, and is speaking of various types of people. That it should also be taken as a description of life in the New Jerusalem is very doubtful.

What? You want scientific exegetical deductive proof? Naaaagh - It is just a respectable theologoumenon, nothing more... Just like your theory that it is to be taken figuratively, and not literally.

Hmmm...in this case the figurative import is, I think, self-evident. This stems from the general prophetic context of Isaiah and the clear usage of figures through this particular passage. In other words, yes, the exegetical data does support a figurative interpretation. I do not deny that there may be a literal intent here also; but if so, it is secondary. My point was simply that this is a risky proof-text for the non-existence of predation before the Fall.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-08-2003 @ 01:15 AM
ItalianGold:
OK - which is it? Virtually every fundamentalist here says that God created Adam and Eve and the garden in a state of perfection. They didn't even know the difference between good and evil. So how could they BE evil??There is no evidence that they didn't know good and evil. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was more a pop culture reference, which really meant all knowledge period. After the man and woman eat the fruit, Genesis 3:222 shows God being upset that the man "...has become like one of us...". Merely knowing the difference between good and bad doesn't make you godlike. Rather, the knowledge of all things makes you godlike! Therefore, by eating the fruit, the man and woman learn all things.
And if the garden was "good"; and all God's creation was good...why did He send a sneaky, seductive, talking snake to Eve?Well, I don't know if you'd accept this, but its more a literary device than anything else. We all knoe Adam and Eve never happened. That man dies was an inevitability. Why the serpent? Well, we could go further into that, but I'd rather wait. Just one thing to think of, just how much did the serpent lie and how much did he actually speak the truth? Christians tend to ignore the fact that they didn't die immediately, and created some made up spiritual death that is not referenced in the Tanakh, even slightly.
I have asked what was the length of time between creation and the Fall. No one knows. Some say it happened on the 8th day. Some say years later.There is no evidence to point to a specific time. Anyone who gives you one is doing so at their own opinion, not at the word of the Tanakh. We know that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3). That's all we are really given. (Genesis 4:25) indicates that Seth was his 3rd child! It isn't until (Genesis 5:4) where it notes Adam then had other children, of course opening the question, where'd Cain's wife come from?

So all we know is that it happened within the first 130 years. That is quite a while to be making any wild judgments.
Why wasn't Eve's eyes opened when she ate the fruit?A good question. I don't know. Perhaps because the man was the key character and she was merely a helper.
After she gave it to Adam, and their eyes were opened why did their nakedness disturb them?This is why I don't believe the tree was knowledge of morality. If it was, they'd be ashamed of eating the fruit! Why are ashamed? Its symbolic. It isn't their bodies they are ashamed of. It is themselves for breaking the only rule! People always try to hide their shame and this is why they clothe themselves. They are hiding their own selves!
Clearly this is another example of the Judeo-Christian obsession of sex as sin. It just doesn't make sense. A common mistake there. This has nothing to do with sex. Have anymore issues? Feel free to ask more.

[ItalianGold]

Jimmy,

Thank you for the studied, thoughtful answers/comments. you gave me a lot of food for thought.

IG

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-08-2003 @ 05:00 PM
ItalianGold:

Jimmy,

Thank you for the studied, thoughtful answers/comments. you gave me a lot of food for thought.

IG Your welcome. I guess this thread is over now. No one else has any comments. And johnransom doesn't seem to think quoting the bible is too important when commenting on it. They'll just make up details. :eek:

[johnransom]

03-09-2003 @ 09:20 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Your welcome. I guess this thread is over now. No one else has any comments. And johnransom doesn't seem to think quoting the bible is too important when commenting on it. They'll just make up details. :eek:

???Tillite nonsense. Why should I bother requoting when it obvious what everyone is talking about? And simply because you don't understand the concept of high context does not mean details are being made up.

[George Blaisdell]

Jimmy Higgins writes:

"We know that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3). "

And we also know that he was dead from the very day he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil...

Such is the mystery of the faith...

Both must be affirmed.

And never one to the denial of the other.

In Christ -

geo

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-09-2003 @ 04:44 PM
johnransom:
???Tillite nonsense. Why should I bother requoting when it obvious what everyone is talking about? And simply because you don't understand the concept of high context does not mean details are being made up. High context? You refer to things not mentioned in the bible. Where is the boundary there? What can limit you from making any assumption? That isn't high context, that's fiction. I work hard trying to get through the words that are written. You seem to be more interested in filling the blanks that may not even exist. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with that sort of translation.

[johnransom]

03-10-2003 @ 02:57 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

High context? You refer to things not mentioned in the bible. Where is the boundary there? What can limit you from making any assumption? That isn't high context, that's fiction. I work hard trying to get through the words that are written. You seem to be more interested in filling the blanks that may not even exist. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with that sort of translation.

Easy. The boundary is the culture in which the work was written. That's what "high-context" means. And precisely what non-existent blanks have I tried to fill in?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-10-2003 @ 05:43 PM
johnransom:
Easy. The boundary is the culture in which the work was written.You are assuming the stories were written one time and within a single culture.
And precisely what non-existent blanks have I tried to fill in? You insisted that the majority of the seduction of the woman by the serpent was excluded from the story of The Fall. You said that a conversation, though not of detail regarding its importance, between Abraham and Issac, even though the cultural symbolism would clearly show the silence having great meaning. To build up the drama.

[johnransom]

03-10-2003 @ 09:35 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

You are assuming the stories were written one time and within a single culture.

No I'm not. Unless you're referring exclusively to Genesis. If you are, don't give me any of that outdated documenary Hypothesis drivel.

You insisted that the majority of the seduction of the woman by the serpent was excluded from the story of The Fall. You said that a conversation, though not of detail regarding its importance, between Abraham and Issac, even though the cultural symbolism would clearly show the silence having great meaning. To build up the drama.

As to the seduction, no I didn't. I said:

Well, not all commentators think that the text presents the entirety of Eve’s discussion with the serpent. Some think it just a summary of a temptation that could have taken quite some time.

See? Not even necessarily my opinion, although I find the argument persuasive. As to Abraham and Isaac, your argument is untenable. To suggest that four people not in shiva did not speak at all for three days is ludicrous, especially considering that only one of them knew what was going to happen at the end and that another was a child (although this is not certain).

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 12:08 AM
johnransom:
No I'm not. Unless you're referring exclusively to Genesis. If you are, don't give me any of that outdated documenary Hypothesis drivel.I am speaking, in this instance, exclusively of Genesis. And I need not mention the Doc Hypothesis because I'm not referring to the eventual editting done by the sources, but the original scripts themselves that were taken and adapted by the Hebrews as they went into Canaan, aka the Phoenicians and Babylonian influences.

As to the seduction, no I didn't. I said...(inserted opinion of others)...
See? Not even necessarily my opinion, although I find the argument persuasive.Why bother saying it if you don't believe it. You certainly suggested it as your opinion. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. What is your take on it? Is there precedence for the opinion that the seduction took a while?
As to Abraham and Isaac, your argument is untenable. To suggest that four people not in shiva did not speak at all for three days is ludicrous, especially considering that only one of them knew what was going to happen at the end and that another was a child (although this is not certain). Its called drama. Its called suspense. If Abraham can count down from high numbers to very low numbers when asking God about the destruction of Sodom, and for some reason Gomorrah, why are we to think that with all the repetition that can occur in the stories, that they'd really dismiss the most important parts?

When looking at Genesis 3, if anything can be withheld, it would be the details of the serpent, not the actual seduction. The seduction is one of the two critical parts of the story. Why omit a detail, nevermind the majority of it. Like I said before, it would be like doing a movie on Pearl Harbor and neglecting to include the bombing of it.

[johnransom]

03-11-2003 @ 07:44 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

I am speaking, in this instance, exclusively of Genesis. And I need not mention the Doc Hypothesis because I'm not referring to the eventual editting done by the sources, but the original scripts themselves that were taken and adapted by the Hebrews as they went into Canaan, aka the Phoenicians and Babylonian influences.

Notwithstanding the huge burden of proof you just saddled yourself with, evidently you agree that texts are culturally based.

Why bother saying it if you don't believe it. You certainly suggested it as your opinion. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. What is your take on it? Is there precedence for the opinion that the seduction took a while?

Because it shows that there is a body of opinion that disagrees with you. As I said, I find it persuasive, but I hold no strong position on this. It makes sense because the text as reported is extraordinarily brief. Eve gives in very quickly to the temptation, quicker even than the average child might. And why would there need to be a precedent here? Indeed, how could there be a precedent for the first ever instance of temptation?

Its called drama. Its called suspense. If Abraham can count down from high numbers to very low numbers when asking God about the destruction of Sodom, and for some reason Gomorrah, why are we to think that with all the repetition that can occur in the stories, that they'd really dismiss the most important parts?

When looking at Genesis 3, if anything can be withheld, it would be the details of the serpent, not the actual seduction. The seduction is one of the two critical parts of the story. Why omit a detail, nevermind the majority of it. Like I said before, it would be like doing a movie on Pearl Harbor and neglecting to include the bombing of it.

Obviously, one does not edit out the major events in a story. But this does not reflect your argument. You argued that the non-reporting of any dialogue in the Abraham and Isaac story is evidence of silence and is consequently a source of dramatic tension. But that is equally absent from the actual text and is merely your own inference of context. However, the tension would be just as well served, if not better, by continuing dialogue in which Abraham has to avoid any mention of the sacrifice (John Huston did just that in his movie of Genesis - "In the Beginning" I think it was called, with George C. Scott as Abraham, IIRC).

And you also forget one very key issue - editing stuff was more or less mandatory in a society in which writing materials were scarce and expensive. And Genesis is a huge work as it is.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 09:26 AM
johnransom:
Notwithstanding the huge burden of proof you just saddled yourself with, evidently you agree that texts are culturally based.True, the amount of evidence to show my point is certainly large, however, nonetheless, this evidence does exist and can be found by reading the other regional scriptures, i.e. Enuma Elish, Ovesta (sp?), etc... I believe there are Sumarian tablets depicting a scence from The Fall, though the actors are clothed, well except the snake of course. The Enuma Elish clearly has certain connections with the First Story of Creation, ie the creations and their order, and number. And while you discard the cosmology that I bring up, such as seen in Psalms and Job, the attitude, so to speak, of those specific scriptures are much more reminiscent of the attitude within the foreign cultures, ie, bragging God's accomplishments and speaking of his might and will.

This of course, is merely an introduction to an introduction to what would be properly needed to discuss foreign input into the Tanakh, however, the reading of the foreign scriptures will clearly show some similarities that can not helped to be thought that they have a direct correlation. I would gladly go much further into this with you. What other scriptures are you familiar with from the Middle East?

Because it shows that there is a body of opinion that disagrees with you.Well, I wouldn't say that the disagreement would have much say. The fact that they suppose what happened instead of witnessing what happened is certainly a manner of study, however, I find often that this is usually reserved for areas that deem complications for some commentators. Its a way out to explain the quagmire their line of thinking is presented with. Such an example is Matthew Henry, who is got to be one of the best at glossing over important issues.
Eve gives in very quickly to the temptation, quicker even than the average child might.My problem is that you have great reservation with accepting this. Nothing is really spoken of the intelligence or the willfulness of the man and woman. That the woman needs to do barely anything to the man to convince him, would seem to correlate perfectly with thinking the conversation between the serpent and Eve is pretty much complete. Yet, they want to add an exception to Eve. You seem to have little issue with such idealogy, I hold great reservation towards it. While it shouldn't be counted out without thought, I think the linearity of the story indicates that very little is missing.
And why would there need to be a precedent here? Indeed, how could there be a precedent for the first ever instance of temptation?My point exactly! The story clearly shows a short time for the seduction. This is the precedence! The commentators you speak of, could you please submit a name or two please, do not like the fact the seduction appears to be quick. So they change the outlook. The story is the precedence, the commentators disagree. Why? There is no standing, as far as I am aware. That is unless, the Tanakh speaks of a great task of seduction on the part of the serpent elsewhere. This may exist, my area is in Genesis, not much of the rest of the Tanakh, however, I'm not aware of this great task being alluded to.
Obviously, one does not edit out the major events in a story. But this does not reflect your argument. You argued that the non-reporting of any dialogue in the Abraham and Isaac story...and the story of The Fall, though for different purposes ...is evidence of silence and is consequently a source of dramatic tension. But that is equally absent from the actual text and is merely your own inference of context.The text doesn't speak of a conversation. To assume the text is telling you what you are supposed to hear, is less my own inference, but rather the comprehension of the story.
However, the tension would be just as well served, if not better, by continuing dialogue in which Abraham has to avoid any mention of the sacrifice (John Huston did just that in his movie of Genesis - ";In the Beginning"; I think it was called, with George C. Scott as Abraham, IIRC).But such a tension would certainly be spoken of, wouldn't it? Doesn't Abraham answer a few questions of Issac regarding the sacrifice? Doesn't Abraham already avoid the issue at hand? Why should we expect there to be more?
And you also forget one very key issue - editing stuff was more or less mandatory in a society in which writing materials were scarce and expensive. And Genesis is a huge work as it is. While Genesis is a huge work, are you saying that the "mandatory" editing abridged the word of God? Wouldn't that be sacreligous?

[johnransom]

03-11-2003 @ 11:18 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

True, the amount of evidence to show my point is certainly large, however, nonetheless, this evidence does exist and can be found by reading the other regional scriptures, i.e. Enuma Elish, Ovesta (sp?), etc...What other scriptures are you familiar with from the Middle East?

The Enuma Elish, very superficially. As far as I can tell the influence, such as it is, is largely negative. That is, Genesis was written in some ways as a rebuttal to the pagan texts.

Well, I wouldn't say that the disagreement would have much say. The fact that they suppose what happened instead of witnessing what happened is certainly a manner of study, however, I find often that this is usually reserved for areas that deem complications for some commentators. Its a way out to explain the quagmire their line of thinking is presented with. Such an example is Matthew Henry, who is got to be one of the best at glossing over important issues.

IOW, you dismiss out of hand those who disagree with you. I note, BTW, that you skipped over the Cain and Abel example, which clearly omits a critical datum, in contrast to the Eve and Isaac episodes, where the potentially missing information is of minor consequence, theologically at least. And you continue to ignore the importance of high context; commentators have little to do with it.

My problem is that you have great reservation with accepting this. Nothing is really spoken of the intelligence or the willfulness of the man and woman. That the woman needs to do barely anything to the man to convince him, would seem to correlate perfectly with thinking the conversation between the serpent and Eve is pretty much complete. Yet, they want to add an exception to Eve. You seem to have little issue with such idealogy, I hold great reservation towards it. While it shouldn't be counted out without thought, I think the linearity of the story indicates that very little is missing.

Eve's discussion with Adam before he eats the fruit is supporting evidence for this position. It is, frankly, way too short and perfectly in line with the highly elliptical style of the early chapters of Genesis (Cain and Abel, the missing genealogy of Cain's wife, the almost completely absent story of Nimrod, etc.)

My point exactly! The story clearly shows a short time for the seduction. This is the precedence! The commentators you speak of, could you please submit a name or two please, do not like the fact the seduction appears to be quick. So they change the outlook. The story is the precedence, the commentators disagree. Why? There is no standing, as far as I am aware. That is unless, the Tanakh speaks of a great task of seduction on the part of the serpent elsewhere. This may exist, my area is in Genesis, not much of the rest of the Tanakh, however, I'm not aware of this great task being alluded to.

This is a descent into incoherence. The story contains no meaningful temporal markers at all. Your statement is essentially circular.

and the story of The Fall, though for different purposes The text doesn't speak of a conversation...To assume the text is telling you what you are supposed to hear, is less my own inference, but rather the comprehension of the story.

No, it's 21st century graphocentrism, to use JPH's word.

But such a tension would certainly be spoken of, wouldn't it? Doesn't Abraham answer a few questions of Issac regarding the sacrifice? Doesn't Abraham already avoid the issue at hand? Why should we expect there to be more?

Yes, he does, so we can reasonably assume that he's been avoiding it for the previous three days too.

While Genesis is a huge work, are you saying that the "mandatory" editing abridged the word of God? Wouldn't that be sacreligous?

Absurd. But in tolerance of your weak comprehension of Biblical inspiration, why would God expect something to be written when there's nothing to write on?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 03:07 PM
johnransom:
The Enuma Elish, very superficially. As far as I can tell the influence, such as it is, is largely negative. That is, Genesis was written in some ways as a rebuttal to the pagan texts.So then why is there a strong correlation between the two?
Eve's discussion with Adam before he eats the fruit is supporting evidence for this position. It is, frankly, way too shortWait a second. Now it is all abbreviated? I don't understand how the word of God can be abbreviated, especially when it uses repetition often to hammer in points. Or is this style unique only to the Pre-history in Genesis and not beyond? Such as with Abraham and God's conversation in 18:22-32. It almost becomes monotonous, the repetition. Yes, the reason for the disfavor of Cain is not given, however, did there have to be a reason? Perhaps, or probably more likely. But your assumption that the story was abbreviated instead of accepting that it was copied and adjusted and eventually reworked is lost on me. You won't even give that idea one second of thought. But the man and woman are both quickly deceived. We know why God floods the world. We know why God boots the man and woman from the garden. There are so many details we do have.
...and perfectly in line with the highly elliptical style of the early chapters of Genesis (Cain and Abel, the missing genealogy of Cain's wife, the almost completely absent story of Nimrod, etc.)Or Gomorrah for that fact? Perhaps its better to ask where Cain's wife came from. Seeing that Seth was the third child of Eve, Gen 4:25, atleast presumeably so. Where could Cain's wife have come from? How could the entire world go to Egypt during the great Famine during Joseph's story? You seem to be overlooking contradictions and passing them off as mere abbreviations, instead of the imperfections they really seem to be.

And please note, I have not come in here spouting off website after website of "errors" in the bible. I have come these ends through lots of study, so atleast, please give me that credit.
Yes, he does, so we can reasonably assume that he's been avoiding it for the previous three days too.Why?
Absurd. But in tolerance of your weak comprehension of Biblical inspiration, why would God expect something to be written when there's nothing to write on? But you said, "editing stuff was more or less mandatory in a society in which writing materials were scarce and expensive." So I assume that you meant that Genesis was editted, therefore reworked. I can hardly see how something that is God inspired would need editting.

[johnransom]

03-11-2003 @ 09:32 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

So then why is there a strong correlation between the two?

Er...because they're both creation accounts? The actual degree of correlation is a matter of opinion.

Wait a second. Now it is all abbreviated? I don't understand how the word of God can be abbreviated, especially when it uses repetition often to hammer in points. Or is this style unique only to the Pre-history in Genesis and not beyond? Such as with Abraham and God's conversation in 18:22-32. It almost becomes monotonous, the repetition. Yes, the reason for the disfavor of Cain is not given, however, did there have to be a reason? Perhaps, or probably more likely. But your assumption that the story was abbreviated instead of accepting that it was copied and adjusted and eventually reworked is lost on me. You won't even give that idea one second of thought. But the man and woman are both quickly deceived. We know why God floods the world. We know why God boots the man and woman from the garden. There are so many details we do have.

First, as I already noted, you have a very confused idea of inspiration. In order to be inspired a text is not required to be comprehensive, nor is it required to be immune from normal writing techniques. Second, if there was no reason for God's displeasure with Cain, then He is being shown to be capricious, which is hardly Moses' theological intent. It is the context which requires the reader to recognize that something is missing. Third, you burden yourself yet again with an obligation for proof in the redaction argument. While I have not denied that it is possible that the original text has been in some way reshaped, this is virtually impossible to prove. The most prominent line of thinking in this vein, the aforementioned Documentary Hypothesis, has been thoroughly rebutted. I see no reason to believe others would not share the same fate.

Or Gomorrah for that fact? Perhaps its better to ask where Cain's wife came from. Seeing that Seth was the third child of Eve, Gen 4:25, atleast presumeably so. Where could Cain's wife have come from? How could the entire world go to Egypt during the great Famine during Joseph's story? You seem to be overlooking contradictions and passing them off as mere abbreviations, instead of the imperfections they really seem to be.

And please note, I have not come in here spouting off website after website of "errors" in the bible. I have come these ends through lots of study, so atleast, please give me that credit.

If so, then why are you beginning to sound like McKinsey? Every item you mention here is an absurd claim.

Why?

Because it's reasonable. Three days of silence isn't. Since neither is textually supported, silence loses.

But you said, "editing stuff was more or less mandatory in a society in which writing materials were scarce and expensive." So I assume that you meant that Genesis was editted, therefore reworked. I can hardly see how something that is God inspired would need editting.

Who said anything about reworking? I was talking of Moses, the original author. An author can quite easily be his own editor. Again, get a valid view of inspiration. Inspiration does not preclude authorial freedom (within the bounds of conveying the intended message). Consider the comment in John 20:30, where he admits to omitting vast amounts of data on Christ himself.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 11:38 PM
johnransom:
Er...because they're both creation accounts? The actual degree of correlation is a matter of opinion.Both stories involve the same creations, in the same order. This isn't speculation, its fact.
First, as I already noted, you have a very confused idea of inspiration. In order to be inspired a text is not required to be comprehensive, nor is it required to be immune from normal writing techniques.Then why bother studying anything at all? If you have a question, you can just make up an answer to it. Blame it on the faliability of man.
While I have not denied that it is possible that the original text has been in some way reshaped, this is virtually impossible to prove. The most prominent line of thinking in this vein, the aforementioned Documentary Hypothesis, has been thoroughly rebutted. I see no reason to believe others would not share the same fate.The DH has hardly been debunked. It is real, still taught at the highest levels of education, and makes alot of sense. The reservation you have with it is that Moses couldn't have written the first five books if the DH is true. That is the only reason you don't believe it, as far as I can tell.
As for telling whether something has been editted, I think it can be strongly inferred. Certainly not proven, but Relativity isn't a law, yet no one in their right mind is questioning it.
If so, then why are you beginning to sound like McKinsey? Every item you mention here is an absurd claim.Who is McKinsey? Have a webpage or something, I've never heard of him or her, for all I know. As for "absurd" claims, I think I've been quite level headed and detailed. You may disagree with me, but to say my ideas are absurd is rather harsh and really not true. I think the fact that anyone could think Moses wrote the first five books is gravely absurd, especially knowing that there were probably two "Moses". The roles that man plays are too diverging.
Because it's reasonable. Three days of silence isn't. Since neither is textually supported, silence loses.Oh, so once again its opinion time. Tell me about how people interacted back then on long trips.
Who said anything about reworking? I was talking of Moses, the original author. An author can quite easily be his own editor. Again, get a valid view of inspiration. Inspiration does not preclude authorial freedom (within the bounds of conveying the intended message). Consider the comment in John 20:30, where he admits to omitting vast amounts of data on Christ himself. If you look close enough, you'll find the errors, you'll find the problems, especially with thinking Moses wrote the books, especially with The Paradise narrative. That darn garden is all over the place including near a city that didn't exist anytime near Moses.