Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

God's Secret Law In Eden.


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

 

To the Prof...

 

Yes, we have convergent ideas about entrapment... for sure.

But I've taken great pains to try and see the Genesis narrative from Adam and Eve's totally innocent p.o.v.  This meant making a deliberate effort to try and forget what I know about Good and Evil, about Reward and Punishment and about Death. To try and put aside the stuff that sdelsolray mentioned that we unconsciously and consciously absorb from others, as we grow up. (Fyi, this wasn't easy!) 

 

In doing this I've tried to question everything I'd normally take for granted.

I've also tried to question everything I can in the text.  Obviously I can't succeed, because too much goes on in my subconscious mind for me to be consciously aware of it.  But I HAVE tried to start with as clean a slate as possible.  This meant NOT beginning with the idea that Yahweh was an evil and manipulative monster.  If I did that I'd be doing exactly the same as an indoctrinated Christian would do - albeit in an inverted way.  Such a Christian would begin with the preconceived notion that Yahweh is good and this would influence them from get go, biasing their exploration of Genesis.

 

My exploration (trying to see things from the p.o.v. of Adam and Eve) has lead me to conclude that they were entrapped by Yahweh.

 

By this I mean that by taking the text literally and applying the logic of complete innocence, I've concluded that they had no hope of understanding what God meant by His warning.  Since God would have foreknown this, I'm therefore forced to conclude that it was His intention that they disobey Him. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I see what you are saying, BAA.  We know god to be evil because we can see him from the vantage point of the old testament narrative.  Adam and Eve would have had no way of understanding whether god was good, evil, both, or neither until after they broke the law.  This left them with little option but to either trust him or not.  

 

Because of their innocence and the lack of social interaction, as shown by sdelsolray, Adam and Eve had no way of even understanding that god was attempting to entrap them.  They had nothing by which to gauge god's intentions toward them, until after they broke the law.

 

It's clear that god intended for them to disobey, which, I think, speaks to Eve having the ability to experience envy and pride.  However, it occurred to me this morning that Eve would have had no way of understanding that the pride and envy she felt was evil (can't understand why I didn't realize this sooner).  Her ability to feel it, but not be able to understand it, would therefore place her in a state of innocence, in a sense.  god, therefore, created her capable of sinning, but without the necessary understanding to choose not to.

 

 

You can't understand why you didn't realize this sooner, Prof... ?

 

Don't be so hard on yourself, friend.

That's more or less how I felt when I was trying to get inside Adam and Eve's heads for this article.  I tried NOT to see Genesis from my p.o.v., but theirs - and it wasn't easy making the effort to unlearn what Good, Evil, Death, Reward and Punishment are.  Even now I don't consider what I've written in this thread to anywhere near definitive.  Tentative, yes.  Definitive, no.

 

Likewise, you're making important (but still, tentative) steps on the road to seeing Genesis in a clearer way.  We persevere... right?  goodjob.gif

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

We certainly do what we can.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back again, F!  smile.png

 

 

I have to skedaddle right now.
 
But I'd like to extend my thanks to the kind words of you other folks who've chimed in on this thread. 
 
Now, if you REALLY want to make me happy, please go back and re-read my opening post with a critical eye and do your level best to tear it down and refute it.  By doing this, you'll be doing us ALL a great deal of help.  We can only benefit if we subject each others viewpoints to the harshest possible (but constructive) criticism.
 
Thanks,
 
BAA.

Hello BAA, in answer to your request, here are a few quickie nits to pick with what you wrote.

1. One might challenge your description of God’s command as a law. Usually laws are couched as generalities, no – e.g. “whosoever shall… shall not…” This one is spoken to two individuals. The text does not say that God’s command will apply to all other, future humans. I don’t really think this law vs. command distinction is relevant to your argument, though.

 

I accept what you say, but contend that both commandments and laws can be kept or broken and those to whom these things apply can be rewarded or punished accordingly.   The commandment and warning He gave to Adam and Eve applied only to them and only in Eden.  I've not actually said that it extended to the entire human race.  Only that the repercussions of violating/breaking it extend beyond the borders of Eden - to us all.  The law/command may no longer be in force - but we all still feel the effects of that event. Taking scripture literally, that is.

2. The possessive “its” has no apostrophe. The contraction of “it is,” viz. “it’s,” does have an apostrophe. Heh heh.

 

Guilty as charged!  wink.png

3. As a fundy, I would have replied that Adam and Eve didn’t need to understand good and evil. They didn’t need to figure out what was good or not good. All they had to do was trust God. They did not trust God. They disobeyed (just the way you’re doing, BAA, thou that shalt burn in hell). So, says once-fundy, your argument fails. No entrapment, no Catch-22.

 

Now here I presume you use the word 'Fundy' to mean a Christian who takes the scriptures literally.

 

However, any house built on a foundation of sand cannot stand.

The house of Christian fundamentalism is built on the unstable foundation of selective denial.  To hold the Bible as a historically-accurate and inerrant record of events it's necessary for these Christians to practice a hypocritical denial of any contradictory scientific and historical evidence - while still reaping the benefits and rewards that science gives them.

 

I therefore contend that I don't have to answer # 3, because this mode of Christian fundamentalist belief fails to stand the test.  They need to put their own house in order first, establishing that Adam and Eve existed AT ALL,  before they can assert that Adam and Eve failed to trust God.

4. As a Calvinist fundy, I would perhaps have added that God predestines everything according to His will and pleasure. So God predestined all this stuff. What’s the problem? You, a mere sinful creature, cannot even know what good, evil, and justice are except by God’s common grace, so you’re not competent to say that God was unjust.

 

Same answer as above.

5. As a Catholic, I would have pulled in genre arguments, parallels to other ancient literature, etc. to try to siphon off some stuff (I’m not sure what). Then I would have brought in Augustine’s famous line, which made its way into the Easter liturgy: “O felix culpa, quae talem and tantum meruit habere redemptorem.” O happy fault, which deserved to have such a great redeemer. As Milton does in Paradise Lost, I would have said that your analysis misses the mark because it neglects how great is the result of God’s plan: redeemed believers are knit to God with even deeper bonds than those that would have knit an obedient Adam and Eve to Him. It is greater to be redeemed than to be sinless creatures that never needed redemption. Only through redemption does one come to BE PARTAKERS IN THE DIVINE NATURE, as Peter says. Even the Blessed Virgin Mary is bound to her Lord by redemption, not by sinlessness. (A Calvinist could go along with this, too.)

 

This sounds suspiciously like giving God a free hand to do evil, so that good may abound.  Romans 5 and 6?

 

6. The liberal strategy I already mentioned in my earlier response. I think it’s a pallid and weaker version of #5.

So I guess I’d say that criticisms I can think of are not really criticism of your argument, as far as it goes, but of how you assessed the relative value of some of the terms in your assumptions.

This is the best I can do now! Cheers, F

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to skedaddle right now.

 

But I'd like to extend my thanks to the kind words of you other folks who've chimed in on this thread. 

 

Now, if you REALLY want to make me happy, please go back and re-read my opening post with a critical eye and do your level best to tear it down and refute it.  By doing this, you'll be doing us ALL a great deal of help.  We can only benefit if we subject each others viewpoints to the harshest possible (but constructive) criticism.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I don't have a contention with the form of your argument, but as a fundamentalist I probably would have replied that you have missed the point. On my former Christian worldview, I would have asserted that God is the standard against which good and evil are measured. When we say "God is good" we don't mean that what which we usually think of as good is descriptive of God; rather, we mean that whatever God is, that thing will be good. We don't start with an idea of good and say "God is like that", we start with an idea of God and say "good is like that".

 

If this is the case, then it boots nothing to say that God is evil, because any action undertaken by God is good by definition. This is related to Ficino's point #4. We don't get to decide what is good and what is evil; God does. It doesn't matter if we like it or not. God did it, and He is good. Who are we to criticize Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then everything is in free fall, Disillusioned.

 

God can do whatever He likes and whatever it is... it's good.

 

He can predestine the likes of Pohl Pot or Jack the Ripper to undeserved eternal bliss in heaven and they cannot argue with His irresistible grace.  Conversely, He can predestine people we consider to have lead morally good lives to eternal agony in the raging fires of hell and there's no possible argument or comeback.

 

Call me biased, but I've always the God of Calvin to be the most evil creation of the human mind... ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

At this point, I'm starting to wonder why we aren't getting any authentic christian responses to this thread.  Ficino and disillusioned have done a good job playing devil's advocate; but are there seriously NO christians who are up to the challenge so eloquently laid down by BAA here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I continue, I want to make it understood that I am in agreement with your OP and I think it is a great viewpoint of the garden experience from the perspectives of Adam and Eve.

 

That being said, one of the criticisms that I would like to address is that of the fact that God created Adam and Eve in his likeness and then gave them dominion over the animals and creatures in the garden:

 

Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

 

What exactly is dominion and what role does it play in their decision making abilities? We see in the passage quoted that God made them in his image and then gave them dominion over all the creatures on the earth. So, to what capacity does "in His image" and the Dominion aspect relate back to their ability to judge, make rational decisions about their "domain". Are they like god in that regard, or is this simply a characteristic where they can kill or not kill any creature within their "domain" or use them for farming or grow crops or whatever?

 

I do not see any particular section of scripture that defines this aspect of their humanity. I think it is logical to conclude that Adam and Eve were capable of making decisions and choices regarding their domain and the creatures around them. While, as I think about this, it may not be that those types of decisions are all that complicated or that they would require much logical deduction ability, I believe it is a still valid point to bring up.

 

We do not know, nor does the bible say to what level of reasoning or intellectual power god game them to be able to have dominion over the earth. In this regard, we can only speculate that, due to their level of innocence, that they had their hands tied in their ability to choose to disobey, or trust, or to understand what the snake was trying to get them to do. But in reference to their having been given dominion over the earth, I believe that this implies that they were given power much like that of a king over a kingdom and with that power and responsibility, a certain level of intelligence and thought making ability was needed, and god would certainly have given them this ability in this regard.

 

Another thing that comes to mind as I try to think of other criticisms, is that the concept of death had to have existed for Adam and Eve prior to them being confronted by the snake. Animals eat animals and give birth to animals. The cycle of life and death had to have been present in the garden. Even if all animals ate vegetation, some plants still likely would have died due to having no leaves to conduct photosynthesis, due to their being eaten. We know that there are two types of flowers, Perennials and annuals. Some plants only live one season. Insects only live a short period of time. Heck, some insects only exist because of death. Death had to be a concept that they were somewhat conscious of. Granted, they likely had no concept of their own death. So I don't think that Adam and Eve were as innocent as you might think.

 

Those are my thoughts and criticisms, for what they're worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then everything is in free fall, Disillusioned.

 

God can do whatever He likes and whatever it is... it's good.

 

He can predestine the likes of Pohl Pot or Jack the Ripper to undeserved eternal bliss in heaven and they cannot argue with His irresistible grace.  Conversely, He can predestine people we consider to have lead morally good lives to eternal agony in the raging fires of hell and there's no possible argument or comeback.

 

Call me biased, but I've always the God of Calvin to be the most evil creation of the human mind... ever.

 

Indeed. On this worldview God can do whatever He likes, and it will be good. These sort of mental somersaults are common among the faithful. To the rest of us, they seem rather pathetic.

 

My hypothetical objection is also subject to the criticism that this worldview leaves the Christian with the problem of determining what God is like. It's all well and good to say that God is the standard against which good and evil are measured, but if we are responsible for determining what God is like then we are responsible for determining what is good and what is evil. The mind boggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughts and criticisms are worth a great deal, Storm.  Thanks for the input. I welcome it.  smile.png

 

Re: dominion over the animals...

 

Yes, I agree with what you say about a necessary level of reasoning and intellect.  That's what Adam would have had to employ to name the animals.  So, point taken.

 

Re: death...

 

Your point about death pre-existing Adam and Eve is an entirely logical and coherent one.

However, I've been at pains to stress that I've been taking the Genesis narrative as literally as I can, to try and get inside the innocent minds of Adam and Eve.  Doing this entails leaving behind what I know about ecosystems, predators and prey, photosynthesis and a whole lot more.  Instead, I've tried to take scripture as it is.  So when Romans 5 : 12 says that death came thru the sin of one man - I've factored that into my argument by treating it as a bald fact, just as a Christian fundamentalist might do.

 

Therefore, from the perspective of a (reasonably) well-read 21st century man, I accept what you say about the necessity of death existing in the animal and plant kingdoms before Adam and Eve were created.  But that's not what the Bible says - so I can't incorporate the idea of them knowing what death was into my argument.  I have to proceed as scripture dictates - and it dictates that death was unknown to them until after they disobeyed God.

 

I hope you can see how my thinking goes on this, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughts and criticisms are worth a great deal, Storm.  Thanks for the input. I welcome it.  smile.png

 

Re: dominion over the animals...

 

Yes, I agree with what you say about a necessary level of reasoning and intellect.  That's what Adam would have had to employ to see name the animals.  So, point taken.

 

Re: death...

 

Your point about death pre-existing Adam and Eve is an entirely logical and coherent one.

However, I've been at pains to stress that I've been taking the Genesis narrative as literally as I can, to try and get inside the innocent minds of Adam and Eve.  Doing this entails leaving behind what I know about ecosystems, predators and prey, photosynthesis and a whole lot more.  Instead, I've tried to take scripture as it is.  So when Romans 5 : 12 says that death came thru the sin of one man - I've factored that into my argument by treating it as a bald fact, just as a Christian fundamentalist might do.

 

Therefore, from the perspective of a (reasonably) well-read 21st century man, I accept what you say about the necessity of death existing in the animal and plant kingdoms before Adam and Eve were created.  But that's not what the Bible says - so I can't incorporate the idea of them knowing what death was into my argument.  I have to proceed as scripture dictates - and it dictates that death was unknown to them until after they disobeyed God.

 

I hope you can see how my thinking goes on this, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Point taken on the death aspect. I now see the difficulty you employed in coming up with this line of reasoning. Very difficult indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughts and criticisms are worth a great deal, Storm.  Thanks for the input. I welcome it.  smile.png

 

Re: dominion over the animals...

 

Yes, I agree with what you say about a necessary level of reasoning and intellect.  That's what Adam would have had to employ to name the animals.  So, point taken.

 

Re: death...

 

Your point about death pre-existing Adam and Eve is an entirely logical and coherent one.

However, I've been at pains to stress that I've been taking the Genesis narrative as literally as I can, to try and get inside the innocent minds of Adam and Eve.  Doing this entails leaving behind what I know about ecosystems, predators and prey, photosynthesis and a whole lot more.  Instead, I've tried to take scripture as it is.  So when Romans 5 : 12 says that death came thru the sin of one man - I've factored that into my argument by treating it as a bald fact, just as a Christian fundamentalist might do.

 

Therefore, from the perspective of a (reasonably) well-read 21st century man, I accept what you say about the necessity of death existing in the animal and plant kingdoms before Adam and Eve were created.  But that's not what the Bible says - so I can't incorporate the idea of them knowing what death was into my argument.  I have to proceed as scripture dictates - and it dictates that death was unknown to them until after they disobeyed God.

 

I hope you can see how my thinking goes on this, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

BAA, I have been ruminating about this whole death in the garden thing and I can't say that I have completely resolved it. This is probably another one of those toughies that the authors of the books of the bible made when they were trying to explain things in scripture, but they just made it worse, instead of actually resolving the issue.

 

When you read Genesis 3:2-4, it says the following:

"2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”"

 

Prior verses indicated that god told Adam that if he ate of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, that he would die, thus we can conclude that Adam then instructed Eve of this. If this is indeed true, then two things must have happened. Firstly, the words which were spoken by Adam and Eve and god had to have been assigned a particular meaning. The whole concept of the language that was used to communicate with god presents an interesting dilemma. How did the language operate and how did the concepts of what was being discussed play into their interpretations of the things being discussed? This plays into the topic sdelsolray brought up about them not having grown up and having learned as a child. We can only speculate as to how they were able to communicate immediately without having grown up and learning all the concepts that were discussed.

 

Secondly, if the word for death existed, then some concept of it had to have existed in order for Adam to understand it and communicate its concept to Eve so she would know the severity of the punishment.

 

I think it is logical to assume that if Adam had no intellectual concept of death, god would have either had to explain it or magically make it so Adam understood the concept. I think it might be logical to assume that in god giving Adam and Eve the capability to execute dominion over the earth, he would have included this death concept. As you know, for farmers and gardeners, death is just a normal part of the job. So, I still contend that death existed pre-fall, despite what Romans 5:12 says.

 

In looking at Romans 5:12, I find that this only complicates this whole thing. I guess it makes theological sense that some apologists say that it was spiritual death that entered the world when they ate the apple, but I believe that is stretching it. The only thing I can conclude at this point is that the rest of the existing earth and its creatures experienced the cycle of life, but humans apparently were spared this. If you look at the creation of man, god says let us create him in our image. God is an eternal being. So, it makes sense that he would create man to be eternal as well. All the other created things were not created in god's image, so it might be concluded that the earth existed then as it does now.

 

I think I may be getting out of my league in travelling down this theological road, but I figured I would give it a try and see what you or anyone else thought about this argument.

 

I hope I am not derailing this thread by posing these questions.

 

Storm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your thoughts and criticisms are worth a great deal, Storm.  Thanks for the input. I welcome it.  smile.png

 

Re: dominion over the animals...

 

Yes, I agree with what you say about a necessary level of reasoning and intellect.  That's what Adam would have had to employ to name the animals.  So, point taken.

 

Re: death...

 

Your point about death pre-existing Adam and Eve is an entirely logical and coherent one.

However, I've been at pains to stress that I've been taking the Genesis narrative as literally as I can, to try and get inside the innocent minds of Adam and Eve.  Doing this entails leaving behind what I know about ecosystems, predators and prey, photosynthesis and a whole lot more.  Instead, I've tried to take scripture as it is.  So when Romans 5 : 12 says that death came thru the sin of one man - I've factored that into my argument by treating it as a bald fact, just as a Christian fundamentalist might do.

 

Therefore, from the perspective of a (reasonably) well-read 21st century man, I accept what you say about the necessity of death existing in the animal and plant kingdoms before Adam and Eve were created.  But that's not what the Bible says - so I can't incorporate the idea of them knowing what death was into my argument.  I have to proceed as scripture dictates - and it dictates that death was unknown to them until after they disobeyed God.

 

I hope you can see how my thinking goes on this, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

BAA, I have been ruminating about this whole death in the garden thing and I can't say that I have completely resolved it. This is probably another one of those toughies that the authors of the books of the bible made when they were trying to explain things in scripture, but they just made it worse, instead of actually resolving the issue.

 

When you read Genesis 3:2-4, it says the following:

"2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”"

 

Prior verses indicated that god told Adam that if he ate of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, that he would die, thus we can conclude that Adam then instructed Eve of this. If this is indeed true, then two things must have happened. Firstly, the words which were spoken by Adam and Eve and god had to have been assigned a particular meaning. The whole concept of the language that was used to communicate with god presents an interesting dilemma. How did the language operate and how did the concepts of what was being discussed play into their interpretations of the things being discussed? This plays into the topic sdelsolray brought up about them not having grown up and having learned as a child. We can only speculate as to how they were able to communicate immediately without having grown up and learning all the concepts that were discussed.

 

 

Excellent point about language, Storm!  Now, please compare the Genesis 3 : 2 - 4 quote above with this.

Genesis 2 : 15 - 17, NIV.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

Not the same, is it?  

God tells Adam that on the day he EATS of the fruit, he'll certainly die.  Eve tells the serpent that even if they TOUCH the fruit, they'll die.  So what's going on?  Has Adam failed to relay God's warning correctly to Eve?  Has Eve embellished what Adam told her? What's the deal, here?  Wendyshrug.gif 

 

Well, I'm sorry Storm but I don't know the answer to that one.

All I know is that there seems to be a disparity between Gen 2 and Gen 3, when it comes to the exact wording of God's warning.  That, and the fact that God warns Adam personally but doesn't warn Eve, only complicates things and muddies the waters further.  Which is puzzling, seeing as the stakes couldn't be any higher.  God, with his perfect foreknowledge and All-power, seems to be curiously aloof to the ultimate fate of the human race, wouldn't you say?  With the fate of the creation He was clearly pleased with and calls ' very good' hanging in the balance, you'd think that as a loving, caring and compassionate father He'd have made sure that His two favorite creations were better prepared to make the most important decision in human history, right?

 

Secondly, if the word for death existed, then some concept of it had to have existed in order for Adam to understand it and communicate its concept to Eve so she would know the severity of the punishment.

 

I think it is logical to assume that if Adam had no intellectual concept of death, god would have either had to explain it or magically make it so Adam understood the concept. I think it might be logical to assume that in god giving Adam and Eve the capability to execute dominion over the earth, he would have included this death concept. As you know, for farmers and gardeners, death is just a normal part of the job. So, I still contend that death existed pre-fall, despite what Romans 5:12 says.

 

In looking at Romans 5:12, I find that this only complicates this whole thing. I guess it makes theological sense that some apologists say that it was spiritual death that entered the world when they ate the apple, but I believe that is stretching it. The only thing I can conclude at this point is that the rest of the existing earth and its creatures experienced the cycle of life, but humans apparently were spared this. If you look at the creation of man, god says let us create him in our image. God is an eternal being. So, it makes sense that he would create man to be eternal as well. All the other created things were not created in god's image, so it might be concluded that the earth existed then as it does now.

 

 

Two points, Storm.

First, your appeal to logic is entirely understandable and I even agree with it.  Applying the logic of gardening (I'm a gardener, btw.) death must have existed pre-fall.  However, this logic has to be put aside so for Genesis and Romans to harmonize with one another.  That was the whole point of my writing this piece in the first place... to look at the issue of Eden from a strictly scriptural (not logical) p.o.v.  

 

Therefore, the scripturally harmonized view (that Death came thru sin and was therefore unknown in Eden before then) is not only illogical, but also generates the problem of Adam understanding what it is when God warns him about it.  Such a problem suggests to me that the Bible is NOT the inerrant, fully-harmonious and united word of God.  Instead, because these kinds of problems arise elsewhere too, I'm inclined to think that the Bible is the contradictory word of flawed and fallible men.  That conclusion lays to rest a multitude of textual, logical and historical problems.  If scripture is from man, then we'd expect it to be as contradictory as we are.

 

Secondly, re: God making Adam and Eve in His image.

Whatever that means, since they were created without any knowledge of Good and Evil, how does this compare with Genesis 3 : 22...?

22 And the Lord God said, “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.”

If we apply logic, it would seem that being "made in the image of God" doesn't automatically confer any knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve had to acquire this knowledge by eating the fruit of that forbidden tree.  

 

This puzzles me even more!  unsure.png 

 

Your thoughts?

 

I think I may be getting out of my league in travelling down this theological road, but I figured I would give it a try and see what you or anyone else thought about this argument.

 

I hope I am not derailing this thread by posing these questions.

 

Storm

 

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

I would like to discuss this more and I would like to think this over a bit before I give any answer. You have clearly spent a significant amount of time thinking this through and I have not given it nearly as much.

Just my cursory thoughts after heaving read your response, I feel that there are just too many unknowns that hinder our ability to completely understand what was occurring in the garden and the thought processes that Adam and Eve would have had when presented the information by the serpent. You bring up strong points and with my limited knowledge of theology and not having thought this over significantly, I want to at least try to answer with due diligence and thought.

 

At times, I feel as though we are on opposite sides of this, even though I am in agreement with you and your OP. I just like the idea of having a good, thought out discussion about something like this to sharpen my ideas and, hopefully, become better at challenges to what I believe to be true.

 

After having studied this a bit over the morning and I can see how the story fits more as allegorical than literal. I will ruminate some more and hopefully have a good grasp on my thoughts on this. 

 

I hope to be able to give a good response early next week. I unfortunately am unable to get on here over the weekends.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Storm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You too, friend!

 

I look forward to your return.  :)

 

Thanks for giving this so much thought.

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Secondly, re: God making Adam and Eve in His image.

Whatever that means, since they were created without any knowledge of Good and Evil, how does this compare with Genesis 3 : 22...?

22 And the Lord God said, “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.”

If we apply logic, it would seem that being "made in the image of God" doesn't automatically confer any knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve had to acquire this knowledge by eating the fruit of that forbidden tree.  

 

This puzzles me even more!  unsure.png 

 

A few quandaries/questions:

 

1)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with (before eating the forbidden fruit), and if all they had to do to regain eternal life after eating that fruit was to eat a fruit from the Tree of Life, why didn't they just do that?

 

2)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with, then why was there a need for the Tree of Life in the first instance in the original creation?  Seems unnecessary and redundant, particularly for an tri-omni god.

 

3)  If the Tree of Life was necessary, or simply present in the Garden of Eden, then it is reasonable to conclude A&E didn't have eternal life to begin with (which would also comport with the reality that carbon based life on Earth is not eternal) and God's message to Adam that "you will surely die" was incorrect, a misrepresentation and/or an outright lie because there was an antidote to the poison of the fruit from the Tree of Good and Eveil - the fruit from the Tree of Life.

 

4)  How far was one tree from another?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Secondly, re: God making Adam and Eve in His image.

Whatever that means, since they were created without any knowledge of Good and Evil, how does this compare with Genesis 3 : 22...?

22 And the Lord God said, “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.”

If we apply logic, it would seem that being "made in the image of God" doesn't automatically confer any knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve had to acquire this knowledge by eating the fruit of that forbidden tree.  

 

This puzzles me even more!  unsure.png 

 

A few quandaries/questions:

 

1)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with (before eating the forbidden fruit), and if all they had to do to regain eternal life after eating that fruit was to eat a fruit from the Tree of Life, why didn't they just do that?

 

2)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with, then why was there a need for the Tree of Life in the first instance in the original creation?  Seems unnecessary and redundant, particularly for an tri-omni god.

 

3)  If the Tree of Life was necessary, or simply present in the Garden of Eden, then it is reasonable to conclude A&E didn't have eternal life to begin with (which would also comport with the reality that carbon based life on Earth is not eternal) and God's message to Adam that "you will surely die" was incorrect, a misrepresentation and/or an outright lie because there was an antidote to the poison of the fruit from the Tree of Good and Eveil - the fruit from the Tree of Life.

 

4)  How far was one tree from another?

 

 

Ok sdelsolray... good questions.

 

Is this of any help?

 

Revelation 22 New International Version (NIV) Eden Restored

22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowingfrom the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the Koine (NT Greek) word that refers to God being eternal, is eidios. (Need to look that up.)

The salient point being that ONLY God is truly eternal.  Whereas, every created being isn't eternal, but can become immortal by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.  This might explain why the saved and glorified servants of God need to eat from that tree, just as Adam and Eve did.  If the saved were truly eternal, like God, then they wouldn't need to do this.

 

To answer question #1, Adam and Eve had been eating from the Tree of Life in Eden (" you are free to eat from ANY tree except..."), but once they sinned, they no longer had the right to do so.  As I explained in the opening post, when God said that they were free to eat, this wasn't exactly so.  They were free to eat - so long as they kept the garden and looked after it.  So eating from the tree of life was a reward for obedience to God. Once they disobeyed, they were punished by being denied access to that tree.

 

Does that help at all?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.  Not eidios or eidos.  That's to do with images.  http://biblez.com/searchgreek.php?q=eidos

 

Still looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the use of the word, 'Eternal' in the Bible to describe God...

I've found this... http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/aion.html ...but there's a degree of flexibility in the usage of Aion.  Some Christians take aion to mean " forever" (eternity without end), while others (Seventh Day Adventist's) take it to mean, "for an age, but not forever" (a very great length of time, but not endless eternity).

.

.

.

This is damn frustrating!  sad.png

I distinctly remember Thumbelina (our resident SDA) mentioning a NT Greek word that described God's eternal nature in a more precise way then Aion... but I can't recall what that word was and so I can't do a search for it.  This word applied only to God and not to any created being like an angel or a human, so it was the perfect descriptor of the point I'm trying to convey.

.

.

.

Later.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Secondly, re: God making Adam and Eve in His image.

Whatever that means, since they were created without any knowledge of Good and Evil, how does this compare with Genesis 3 : 22...?

22 And the Lord God said, “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.”

If we apply logic, it would seem that being "made in the image of God" doesn't automatically confer any knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve had to acquire this knowledge by eating the fruit of that forbidden tree.  

 

This puzzles me even more!  unsure.png 

 

A few quandaries/questions:

 

1)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with (before eating the forbidden fruit), and if all they had to do to regain eternal life after eating that fruit was to eat a fruit from the Tree of Life, why didn't they just do that?

 

2)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with, then why was there a need for the Tree of Life in the first instance in the original creation?  Seems unnecessary and redundant, particularly for an tri-omni god.

 

3)  If the Tree of Life was necessary, or simply present in the Garden of Eden, then it is reasonable to conclude A&E didn't have eternal life to begin with (which would also comport with the reality that carbon based life on Earth is not eternal) and God's message to Adam that "you will surely die" was incorrect, a misrepresentation and/or an outright lie because there was an antidote to the poison of the fruit from the Tree of Good and Eveil - the fruit from the Tree of Life.

 

4)  How far was one tree from another?

 

 

Ok sdelsolray... good questions.

 

Is this of any help?

 

Revelation 22 New International Version (NIV) Eden Restored

22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowingfrom the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the Koine (NT Greek) word that refers to God being eternal, is eidios. (Need to look that up.)

The salient point being that ONLY God is truly eternal.  Whereas, every created being isn't eternal, but can become immortal by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.  This might explain why the saved and glorified servants of God need to eat from that tree, just as Adam and Eve did.  If the saved were truly eternal, like God, then they wouldn't need to do this.

 

To answer question #1, Adam and Eve had been eating from the Tree of Life in Eden (" you are free to eat from ANY tree except..."), but once they sinned, they no longer had the right to do so.  As I explained in the opening post, when God said that they were free to eat, this wasn't exactly so.  They were free to eat - so long as they kept the garden and looked after it.  So eating from the tree of life was a reward for obedience to God. Once they disobeyed, they were punished by being denied access to that tree.

 

Does that help at all?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

First, how do you know that A&E had been eating from the Tree of Life?  Certainly, such a conclusion cannot be based only on the premise that they were free to do so.  That is mere speculation.

 

Second, how do you know that once they ate from the Tree of Good and Evil that they no longer had a right to eat from the Tree of Life?  I realize your response may be that they were banned from Eden thus they couldn't eat from the Tree of Life anymore (assuming that was the only place a Tree of Life was located - but your Revelation verse shows that at least two Trees of Life will eventually exist somewhere else (on on each side of the River of Life).  Aside all that, it took God some time before he came to A&E and discussed their eating from the Tree of Good and Evil.  Perhaps A&E had a full meal, which include bites from both Trees at the same time and the last bite each had was from the Tree of Life.  

 

Third, (and more important), you imply that A&E did not have eternal (or immortal or forever - that nuance can be discussed later) life unless they ate from the Tree of Life.  This means they were created without such longevity (again, whatever that is) and were both destined to die unless they ate from the Tree of Life.  Where does it say this, within your literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly from the innocent perspective of A&E?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA    

 

Amara?  It means eternal I believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA    

 

Amara?  It means eternal I believe

 

Thanks Ravenstar, I'll check it out.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Secondly, re: God making Adam and Eve in His image.

Whatever that means, since they were created without any knowledge of Good and Evil, how does this compare with Genesis 3 : 22...?

22 And the Lord God said, “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.”

If we apply logic, it would seem that being "made in the image of God" doesn't automatically confer any knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve had to acquire this knowledge by eating the fruit of that forbidden tree.  

 

This puzzles me even more!  unsure.png 

 

A few quandaries/questions:

 

1)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with (before eating the forbidden fruit), and if all they had to do to regain eternal life after eating that fruit was to eat a fruit from the Tree of Life, why didn't they just do that?

 

2)  If A&E had eternal life to begin with, then why was there a need for the Tree of Life in the first instance in the original creation?  Seems unnecessary and redundant, particularly for an tri-omni god.

 

3)  If the Tree of Life was necessary, or simply present in the Garden of Eden, then it is reasonable to conclude A&E didn't have eternal life to begin with (which would also comport with the reality that carbon based life on Earth is not eternal) and God's message to Adam that "you will surely die" was incorrect, a misrepresentation and/or an outright lie because there was an antidote to the poison of the fruit from the Tree of Good and Eveil - the fruit from the Tree of Life.

 

4)  How far was one tree from another?

 

 

Ok sdelsolray... good questions.

 

Is this of any help?

 

Revelation 22 New International Version (NIV) Eden Restored

22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowingfrom the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the Koine (NT Greek) word that refers to God being eternal, is eidios. (Need to look that up.)

The salient point being that ONLY God is truly eternal.  Whereas, every created being isn't eternal, but can become immortal by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.  This might explain why the saved and glorified servants of God need to eat from that tree, just as Adam and Eve did.  If the saved were truly eternal, like God, then they wouldn't need to do this.

 

To answer question #1, Adam and Eve had been eating from the Tree of Life in Eden (" you are free to eat from ANY tree except..."), but once they sinned, they no longer had the right to do so.  As I explained in the opening post, when God said that they were free to eat, this wasn't exactly so.  They were free to eat - so long as they kept the garden and looked after it.  So eating from the tree of life was a reward for obedience to God. Once they disobeyed, they were punished by being denied access to that tree.

 

Does that help at all?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Ok sdelsolray,  I'll try to do justice to your questions.

 

First, how do you know that A&E had been eating from the Tree of Life?  Certainly, such a conclusion cannot be based only on the premise that they were free to do so.  That is mere speculation.

 

 I think I can make a reasonable case in favor of A&E eating from the Tree of Life, like this.

 

As I've explained earlier, A&E were not truly free to eat anything from the Eden.  If they were free, then Gen 2 : 15 makes no sense.  God put the man in the garden to work it and take care of it.  If there is work, then there is reward/payment for that work.  So the unwritten contract between God and Adam was that he (and later his wife too) were free to eat of any tree, provided they worked the garden and took care of it.  This is not true, unlimited and unrestrained freedom, where anything at all is permitted.  This is reward for work.  This is a clearly-defined contract with terms and conditions.

 

This contract says nothing about the Tree of Life being off-limits to them.  

Only the Tree of Knowledge is mentioned in the contract, with the condition that they are forbidden to eat from it and a description of the punishment they'll receive if they do.  Now, the prime reason why many think that the Tree of Life was off-limits to them from get go, is Gen 3 : 22.  But this contradicts the wording of the contract.  The contract clearly says ANY tree except the Tree of Knowledge.  The contract does NOT include the Tree of Life as a forbidden item.  People make that connection from Gen 3 : 22, but I submit that to include the Tree as a forbidden item in the contract is to write into the contract something that simply is not there.

 

Second, how do you know that once they ate from the Tree of Good and Evil that they no longer had a right to eat from the Tree of Life?  I realize your response may be that they were banned from Eden thus they couldn't eat from the Tree of Life anymore (assuming that was the only place a Tree of Life was located - but your Revelation verse shows that at least two Trees of Life will eventually exist somewhere else (on on each side of the River of Life).  Aside all that, it took God some time before he came to A&E and discussed their eating from the Tree of Good and Evil.  Perhaps A&E had a full meal, which include bites from both Trees at the same time and the last bite each had was from the Tree of Life.  

 

How do I know?  I don't know, but by applying logic, I conclude the following.

A&E's contract depended on two things.  First, as payment for their work in taking care of God's garden (He was the owner, after all, and they the employees) they were permitted by Him to eat from it's trees, according to the terms and conditions of their working contract.  Second, they were obliged to keep to the terms of that contract.  They didn't.  They broke it.  So their right to eat from the trees (including the Tree of Life) was taken away from them by God.  

 

Death was their punishment and immortality was given to them by the fruit of the Tree of Life (see Gen 3 : 22).

So in order for them to reap their punishment, God prevented them from living forever by continuing to eat from the Tree of Life.  If they could continue to eat from that tree, they'd never die and so never be punished with death.  That (and their act of disobedience) is why they had to be banished from the garden, never to return.

 

Third, (and more important), you imply that A&E did not have eternal (or immortal or forever - that nuance can be discussed later) life unless they ate from the Tree of Life.  This means they were created without such longevity (again, whatever that is) and were both destined to die unless they ate from the Tree of Life.  Where does it say this, within your literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly from the innocent perspective of A&E?

 

 

There are two lines of scriptural evidence that cause me conclude that A&E were not eternal.

 

First, there are the Revelation verses above.

If the glorified and saved servants of God are truly eternal why do they need to eat from the Tree/s of Life in the New Jerusalem?  If that tree is the same one as was planted in Eden by God, then (as Gen 3 : 22 says) it's fruit gives immortality to the eater.  But if the saved are already eternal, why do they need to eat the fruit of a tree that gives immortality?   If the servants of God were truly eternal, then have no need of the longevity conferred by this fruit.

 

Second, how old was Adam when he died?  The answer is 930.

Taking scripture literally (as I've been doing throughout this exercise) to what can we attribute his amazing lifespan?  His access to the fruit of the Tree of Life, perhaps?

 

And there's a clear downward trend to be seen in the diminishing lifespans of Adam's descendants.

By Genesis 11, humans aren't living to 900 years + any more, they're dying at 400, then 300, then 200 years old.  Abraham died at the age of 175 and Moses 120.  I speculate (and that's all it is) that the life-prolonging effects of the Tree of Life were weakening with each generation.  The further from Adam and Eve, the weaker it's effects.   

 

Sdelsolray,

Please note that my logic is based on keeping the scriptures harmonized with themselves.  To do that I've had treat things we know are magical and fantastic as real.  Of course Genesis never happened and of course humans can't live to be 930.  I acknowledge that.  But, I'm making a line of argument here - not trying to establish the historical facts of our origins, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bible clearly states that eternal life is a gift from god, therefore we can not have been created eternal.

 

I've thought about this aspect before also… eternal actually goes both ways… and since we had a beginning, according to the Bible, we can not be eternal or we would have always existed. Even the angels are created beings… meaning they are also not eternal.

 

Sorry, no sources, just popping in for a few minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after a few days of thinking about this, I decided to reread the Genesis narrative to see if I could find things to scrutinize and bring up that might add to this discussion. One of the first things I noticed is that in Genesis 1:29-30 it says the following:

 

"29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so."

 

So, this verse tells us two things. First is that God said that Adam and Eve could eat from any plant that bore seeds. No restrictions here. So, why then the change in the story later in chapter 2? Looks like a later addition or change by a different author...hmmm.

 

Second, this passage seems to indicate that all creatures must be herbivores, since it says that every green herb is for food to every beast of the earth. So, it appears from this passage that the animals and humans were not dying nor were killed for food. But then, what happens if a goat falls off a cliff? does it just heal instantly, or does it die? So many unanswered questions. The only logical thing I can draw from all of this is that, through the use of language, Adam and Eve had to have some concept of death for the communication to have been successful. But your point that the text indicates that the death would be immediate, not a hundreds of years later. So, another problem without a sufficient answer.

 

Another thing I noticed in reading the Genesis narrative is that Genesis never claims that god made the planet earth. It already existed as a formless void engulfed in water. This is confirmed by our resident biblical scholar Steven DiMattei (SRD44) in his website here. So, as to whether or not the planet itself was considered eternal in the context of Genesis is unclear. If it is eternal, then anything that god used to create all the plants, animals and humans was already eternal. So I wonder if that might answer the question as to whether or not the creatures were considered eternal, since god didn't create anything new to make them. He used existing "parts" if you will. But then, it just brings back the whole death issue all over again.

 

BAA, you raise some great points and I have had trouble really coming up with any significant type of rebuttal other than the ones I brought to your attention.

 

I think that the reality of the thing is that the Genesis narrative is really two distinct and separate stories written from different perspectives to convey different points. From 1:1-2:3 the story is very different from 2:4 on until Chapter 5. If you really read it and scrutinize everything, you will notice that there are all types of problems that just don't add up. The other authors of the books in the bible are just adding and creating more problems. It really just points back to the fact that if you read the bible as a whole, you can see that everything just doesn't line up or even make sense so that it works in a way that it is clear that the Christian god created this whole system that Christians claim we need redemption from. 

 

Your exhaustive OP covers a great amount of ground in laying the framework for the idea that the whole premise of christianity is based on a flawed and faulty system god created that led to humanity's ultimate demise. One can be driven crazy simply spending time trying to think of all the ways that the whole system is flawed and why god didn't simply just fix it right then and there and save humanity from all the problems. I, as a simple human, can come up with a better system or even a way to fix the broken one, why couldn't god, who is supposedly omniscient and all powerful, not come up with a suitable repair or replacement, or even create the system where no temptation or possibility of failure even existed?

 

It all boils down to this. Its all made up. I know you agree with this assessment. This is nothing new for the majority of people in this forum, but for the lurkers and newbies, the answers are there. you just have to spend some time looking objectively.

 

Thanks for stimulating my thoughts as you usually do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this, Storm. smile.png

 

So after a few days of thinking about this, I decided to reread the Genesis narrative to see if I could find things to scrutinize and bring up that might add to this discussion. One of the first things I noticed is that in Genesis 1:29-30 it says the following:

 

"29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so."

 

So, this verse tells us two things. First is that God said that Adam and Eve could eat from any plant that bore seeds. No restrictions here. So, why then the change in the story later in chapter 2? Looks like a later addition or change by a different author...hmmm.

 

My conclusion too.

 

Second, this passage seems to indicate that all creatures must be herbivores, since it says that every green herb is for food to every beast of the earth. So, it appears from this passage that the animals and humans were not dying nor were killed for food. But then, what happens if a goat falls off a cliff? does it just heal instantly, or does it die? So many unanswered questions. The only logical thing I can draw from all of this is that, through the use of language, Adam and Eve had to have some concept of death for the communication to have been successful. But your point that the text indicates that the death would be immediate, not a hundreds of years later. So, another problem without a sufficient answer.

 

 

Storm, When I was a Christian the standard answer I was given was that Adam instantly died a spiritual death, before physically dying 930 years later.

That is, his spirit died to God, separating him and all future generations from God.  This is why God had to incarnate Himself as Jesus and tear down the separation between God and man, by taking the punishment upon Himself on the cross.  Hence, this...

 

Matthew 27 : 50 - 54, NIV

 

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

 

(From heaven down to Earth.)

 

The earth shook, the rocks split 5and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. 54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

 

(See also, Mark 15 : 37 -39 and Luke 23 : 44 - 47.)

 

So, even though humans are physically alive, because of Adam and Eve's sin, they are spiritually dead (separated from) to God.

Which is why when a person is Born Again, that separation is healed and they are guaranteed to be with God at some time in the future.

 

Another thing I noticed in reading the Genesis narrative is that Genesis never claims that god made the planet earth. It already existed as a formless void engulfed in water. This is confirmed by our resident biblical scholar Steven DiMattei (SRD44) in his website here. So, as to whether or not the planet itself was considered eternal in the context of Genesis is unclear. If it is eternal, then anything that god used to create all the plants, animals and humans was already eternal. So I wonder if that might answer the question as to whether or not the creatures were considered eternal, since god didn't create anything new to make them. He used existing "parts" if you will. But then, it just brings back the whole death issue all over again.

 

BAA, you raise some great points and I have had trouble really coming up with any significant type of rebuttal other than the ones I brought to your attention.

 

I think that the reality of the thing is that the Genesis narrative is really two distinct and separate stories written from different perspectives to convey different points. From 1:1-2:3 the story is very different from 2:4 on until Chapter 5. If you really read it and scrutinize everything, you will notice that there are all types of problems that just don't add up. The other authors of the books in the bible are just adding and creating more problems. It really just points back to the fact that if you read the bible as a whole, you can see that everything just doesn't line up or even make sense so that it works in a way that it is clear that the Christian god created this whole system that Christians claim we need redemption from. 

 

Just so!

If the Genesis narrative/s are flawed and contradictory, this undermines the whole need for God to become a human, nullifying the Gospels.  Or, putting it another way... No original sin = No need for Jesus.

 

Your exhaustive OP covers a great amount of ground in laying the framework for the idea that the whole premise of christianity is based on a flawed and faulty system god created that led to humanity's ultimate demise. One can be driven crazy simply spending time trying to think of all the ways that the whole system is flawed and why god didn't simply just fix it right then and there and save humanity from all the problems. I, as a simple human, can come up with a better system or even a way to fix the broken one, why couldn't god, who is supposedly omniscient and all powerful, not come up with a suitable repair or replacement, or even create the system where no temptation or possibility of failure even existed?

 

Yes...why?

Perhaps because Genesis is the flawed and faulty work of human minds and not the perfect and flawless work of God?

 

It all boils down to this. Its all made up. I know you agree with this assessment. This is nothing new for the majority of people in this forum, but for the lurkers and newbies, the answers are there. you just have to spend some time looking objectively.

 

Or even... skeptically.  (That was for Ironhorse, btw.  wink.png )

 

Thanks for stimulating my thoughts as you usually do.

 

No problem friend.  smile.png

 

Thanks again for giving my work such a close examination.

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.