A Couple Of Questions For Christians

[Guest Fondue]

I have a couple of questions about God that don't really seem to have answers in the Scriptures, and I need to have the answers!

 

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge? He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

 

Second, I've heard a lot about God being all knowing. If he is, then he knows in advance who will accept JC and who won't, so why not have the Souls start in Hell or Heaven? Why all the waiting?

 

Third, as far as I understand him, God was around before there was anything at all, right? So how did he get these notions about beings and consciousness and selves and laughter and animals, and shitting and fucking? I mean, what was the inspiration for God's first thought?

 

Just some things to think about.

[NotBlinded]

Edit: Oops....sorry, I just realized you said your questions were for Christians. I can delete my post if you want me too. Apologies!

 

God is dreaming....

 

Only fundamentalist, of the Christian flavor, actually believe there ever was a literal tree in a literal garden. I'm pretty sure that even Judaism (except the Orthordox) sees the Garden of Eden as a metaphorical place instead of a literal one. I could be wrong though because I'm not very familar at all with Judaism, but many people are gaining more insight from a metaphorical perspective.

 

 

A text which helps to point out the reasons for the occasional insufficiency of the literal meaning is the classic story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). The story naively read is fascinating, with a didactic plot and a cast of characters that includes a tragic hero, a beguiled woman, a villainous talking serpent, and trees with wondrous powers. But what impels the reader to seek here another level of meaning? What makes him think that here the Torah intended something additional?[4] Once again, the point of departure is the presupposition that the Torah is a book of instruction. Therefore, any text which, if taken literally, does not instruct but mystifies and obfuscates, signifies that one should look beyond the literal. A “tree” whose fruit bestows “knowledge of good and evil” or eternal life cannot be a “real” tree in the sense in which we know it. A “garden” in which the snake has an agenda and speaks persuasively cannot be our kind of garden. Also, it is not immediately apparent what is the nature of the “knowledge of good and evil” that man acquires after eating of the forbidden fruit.[5] It is certainly not the ability to distinguish between good and evil, because in commanding Adam the Torah assumes that man will realize that obedience to God is good and disobedience evil. A clue seems to be given in the words, “And the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked.” But what does this tell us about the nature of the change that man underwent?[6] In short, the failure of the language to instruct, if taken literally, leads us to think of the possibility of metaphor. The characters and events are to be interpreted in a symbolic way. This story seems to be dealing with the origin and nature of evil in man and seeks to explain how it is that man and woman, the special creations of a moral and benevolent God, soon find themselves in a hostile environment with vital needs unprovided for. In a pre-philosophical age, the solution to such an extremely difficult theological problem could only be suggested and alluded to by means of this literary device called metaphor.[7]

Rabbi Shubert Spero http://www.lookstein.org/articles/history_or_metaphor.htm#2

 

And another:

 

Question

 

Rabbi, can you help me with a question? When God told Adam to leave the garden of Eden, did God say that you (singular) must go or you (plural). Was God talking to both Adam and Eve or just Adam?

 

Answer

 

Excellent question!

 

The answer is that although it is written in the singular form, the word "Adam" also refers to mankind as well. Hence, since Eve, Cain and Abel are all part of mankind, they were all exiled from the Garden of Eden. (Source: "Aznayim L'Torah" by R' Z. Sorotzkin, Genesis 3:24)

 

With blessings from Jerusalem,

 

Rabbi Shraga Simmons

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabb...enedenleave.htm

 

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 1 (edited by Botterweck and Ringgren, translated by John T. Willis, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977, page 75-87)

 

'adham, meaning "man" or the proper name "Adam"... usually appears in prose texts with the article, and in poetic texts without the article. Predominantly, this word occurs as a collective singluar designating a class (as "man" in English), and therefore can be translated by "mankind" or as a plural "men." At the same time, it is often used of individuals... and functions adjectivally ("human") or indefinitely ("someone"), but never appears in the plural or in the construct... {page 75}

 

The use of the word 'adham in the OT presents one of the strongest evidences for ancient Israelite universalism. In most passages using 'adham, including the earliest texts, it is clear that this word is not intended to refer particularly to Israelites, but to all men... {pages 83-84}

 

A Theological Word Book of the Bible (edited by Alan Richardson, New York: Macmillan, 1950, page 15)

 

Adam. The word means originally a human being (cf. Gen. 2.5) or mankind collectively (Gen.1.26). Only for the purposes of the myth [the Adam and Eve story] does it become a proper name. (The precise etymology of the word is doubtful.) Thus we may claim biblical sanction for the statement that Adam is Everyman. The myth was, of course, taken literally for centuries; it was traditionally held that Adam was the first human being...

 

http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/heb-adam.htm#adam-dict

[SkepticOfBible]

Only fundamentalist, of the Christian flavor, actually believe there ever was a literal tree in a literal garden. I'm pretty sure that even Judaism (except the Orthordox) sees the Garden of Eden as a metaphorical place instead of a literal one

 

Actually many Orthodox Jews also consider it to be a allegory

 

http://p069.ezboard.com/fmessiahtruthfrm1....icID=2455.topic

 

You may pose this question in the above forum. They have a special "Ask a rabbi" section to ask these sort of question

 

Freak even Catholics have enough sense to see it as allegorical, and they consititute half of Christiandom. Since the Christian God is silent and won't comment on this matter., we have to go by the majority vote I suppose on this part.

[NotBlinded]

Only fundamentalist, of the Christian flavor, actually believe there ever was a literal tree in a literal garden. I'm pretty sure that even Judaism (except the Orthordox) sees the Garden of Eden as a metaphorical place instead of a literal one

 

Actually many Orthodox Jews also consider it to be a allegory

 

http://p069.ezboard.com/fmessiahtruthfrm1....icID=2455.topic

 

You may pose this question in the above forum. They have a special "Ask a rabbi" section to ask these sort of question

 

Freak even Catholics have enough sense to see it as allegorical, and they consititute half of Christiandom. Since the Christian God is silent and won't comment on this matter., we have to go by the majority vote I suppose on this part.

 

Thanks Skeptic...I was hoping you would come in here!

[Aaryn101]

I have a couple of questions about God that don't really seem to have answers in the Scriptures, and I need to have the answers!

 

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge? He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

 

Second, I've heard a lot about God being all knowing. If he is, then he knows in advance who will accept JC and who won't, so why not have the Souls start in Hell or Heaven? Why all the waiting?

 

Third, as far as I understand him, God was around before there was anything at all, right? So how did he get these notions about beings and consciousness and selves and laughter and animals, and shitting and fucking? I mean, what was the inspiration for God's first thought?

 

Just some things to think about.

 

In answer to Number One:

I am unsure of what I believe concering the literal nature of Creation. All that I know is that God created the Universe, ex nihilo. Regardless, the Tree of Knowledge signifies man's free will - his ability to choose his actions. God created man to "glorify Him and enjoy Him forever;" and neither of those things are possible for a being with no free will.

For example, I am a programmer. I can easily create a program that will constantly pop up and praise me in various ways. I could even create one to mimic my thoughts, actions, etc... However, I get almost nothing from this. After all, if I create a little pop-up that tells me I am the "Omnipotent Creator" it actually does me very little good. This is because I have pre-programmed this pop-up to do that; and it is merely doing my will because it has no choice.

God created man with free will so that man can better glorify Him.

 

In answer to Number Two:

You have touched onto one of the biggest stumbling blocks in all of Christian theology: the issue of pre-destination and free will.

I cannot pretend to know the answer to this question, and I know of no Christian who does. Those who are not Christians entitle this a paradox and a case of Scripture contradicting itself. Most Christians decide that the issue is not comprehensible by humankind, and take it on faith. Since the nature of God, and how He relates to space/time, are not truly known, the answer may exist in what we do not know.

Short Answer: It has something to do with the existence of free-will; but I do not know the answer that you seek.

 

In answer to Number Three:

If I truly believe that God is the Creator, and that He can create out of nothing, then it means that He needs no inspiration for His works. Everything has its origins. Christians believe that God is the only being in the universe capable of pure, true, original thought.

 

That's my position on those three things, at least.

[Dhampir]

All that I know is that God created the Universe, ex nihilo.

How do you know that?

 

Regardless, the Tree of Knowledge signifies man's free will - his ability to choose his actions. God created man to "glorify Him and enjoy Him forever;" and neither of those things are possible for a being with no free will.

Barring that this

God created man to "glorify Him and enjoy Him forever;" and neither of those things are possible for a being with no free will

is simply not true, are you saying that we didn't have free will prior to eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, how can we have been punished for imbibing it? If not, how could we have known what we (and by we I mean A&E) were doing by eating it? It held the knowledge of good and evil.

Additionally, how "free" can the will be of a person who was created to a specific purpose?

 

"Along a line between two points a and b, there are an infinite number of other points". This is an example of a paradox that isn't really a paradox.

 

"If you took the longest step you could, and your destination was exactly twice the length of that step, and each successive step was half the length of the one before it, you would never reach your destination." That's another.

 

"Your beginning is known, your end is known, the events of any point between your beginning and end is known. You have free will."

 

The first two are not mutually exclusive. They are understandable but not completely concieveable. I know how they work, even if I can't accurately imagine them.

 

The third idea, that you can change an absolutely known future, is mutually exclusive to the idea that a future can be absolutely known, which then contradicts the idea that god is all knowing, or is incapable of making mistakes. You cannot deviate from a known path. That is why predestination is incompatible with free will.

 

Now, you accept on faith that we deserve this fate, simply for disbelief, and/or failure to follow the correct procedure for salvation. You say that it's right because we can't comprehend how predestination and free will aren't contradictory and how god works with relation to time. Well, we don't exist on the same supposed temporal level as god, we operate on the level that makes predestination and free will incompatible.

 

For all we know, we who are destined to burn for eternity will never understand how god could have known since before creation that we would fill his torture chamber, and yet somehow we 'chose' to end up here. Would you take on faith that you deserve to burn if, despite what you think you know about your spiritual status, you are judged worthy to be sent there?

[Aaryn101]

"How do you know that?"

 

I was simply answering the original question, I did not and do not intend on going into an in-depth discussion on Creationism. Call this cowardice if you will; but it was not my intention to enter into such a debate when I originally posted.

 

"Barring that this

God created man to "glorify Him and enjoy Him forever;" and neither of those things are possible for a being with no free will

is simply not true,"

 

It is most definitely true. Can a computer freely think, or feel? No, it does strictly what it has been programmed to do. Also, does a computer truly glorify its maker? It does, in the sense that his or her skill is seen in the creation; but the computer, by itself, cannot glorify the one who created it.

 

are you saying that we didn't have free will prior to eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, how can we have been punished for imbibing it? If not, how could we have known what we (and by we I mean A&E) were doing by eating it? It held the knowledge of good and evil.

Additionally, how "free" can the will be of a person who was created to a specific purpose?"

 

I believe that all beings, from the time of their creation, had free will. We knew what we were doing by "eating" from the tree because of what we had been told. If we go with the Bible on this story, and since the question you asked operates under the assumption that we are going with typical Creation backstory, then we know that God told man not to eat from the tree. Therefore, eating from the tree was wrong. Man had his choice, to do right, or to do wrong. He chose wrong.

 

Free will and predestination are considered mutually exclusive, yes. I cannot answer your question, though. I can simply point to the unknown, to a God that exists outside of time and space, and speculate that the answer lies there.

 

For all we know, we who are destined to burn for eternity will never understand how god could have known since before creation that we would fill his torture chamber, and yet somehow we 'chose' to end up here. Would you take on faith that you deserve to burn if, despite what you think you know about your spiritual status, you are judged worthy to be sent there?

 

You are right, we cannot understand how free will and predestination can exist simultaneously. That is why, in the course of our lives, we operate under the assumption that we have complete and total free will - not as if our lives were already planned out. Flick your finger against your mouse. Assuming that you did so, you just chose to do that action. Does it matter to you if you were already destined to flick it? No, you simply made your choice, and acted upon it. If it was already planned out before the beginning of time that you would do that, it mattered little to you. You did what you chose to do; and if there were any "eternal" plans involved, they operated seamlessly (to you) with your choice.

 

And, as a Christian, I already take on faith that I deserve to burn there. I take on faith that I should burn along with everyone else; and I would, if it weren't for Christ. But, I am sure you have heard that rant - so I will spare you.

[KT45]

I have a couple of questions about God that don't really seem to have answers in the Scriptures, and I need to have the answers!

 

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge? He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

 

In answer to Number One:

I am unsure of what I believe concering the literal nature of Creation. All that I know is that God created the Universe, ex nihilo. Regardless, the Tree of Knowledge signifies man's free will - his ability to choose his actions. God created man to "glorify Him and enjoy Him forever;" and neither of those things are possible for a being with no free will.

I still don't understand this maybe you can clarify. God knows everything. He know the actions we all will take and the end result of those actions. With this knowledge......

 

1. why on earth would he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden when he KNEW they would fail his command and eat of it?

 

2. At first I thought he put it there because they could eat it later when they were ready but why not just PUT IT THERE when they are ready?

 

3. If he put it there to test them, why test them if you KNOW they are going to fail?

 

I also want to know this.

 

4. Why didn't god just kill adam and eve and start over after they messed up? Why does all of humanity have to suffer for there mistake? He has killed disobident people before why exclude them and make the whole planet suffer?

 

Thanks

[Dhampir]

It is most definitely true. Can a computer freely think, or feel? No, it does strictly what it has been programmed to do.

As are we.

Also, does a computer truly glorify its maker? It does, in the sense that his or her skill is seen in the creation; but the computer, by itself, cannot glorify the one who created it.

It could if you programmed it to. In the same way, god could have made man to be a worshipful being without free will. Your statement is false.

 

We knew what we were doing by "eating" from the tree because of what we had been told.

If the knowledge of good and evil was contained in the fruit of the tree, it makes no sense to say we knew anything about the nature of good and evil before imbibing it.

 

I can simply point to the unknown, to a God that exists outside of time and space, and speculate that the answer lies there.

Rather than acknowledge the nonsense you know is inherent in the idea of compatibility in the two themes, then questioning your conclusions to see if the idea holds water?

 

You are right, we cannot understand how free will and predestination can exist simultaneously. That is why, in the course of our lives, we operate under the assumption that we have complete and total free will - not as if our lives were already planned out.

Actually, I don't believe in free will at all, even if I operate under that assumption.

 

Does it matter to you if you were already destined to flick it? No, you simply made your choice, and acted upon it. If it was already planned out before the beginning of time that you would do that, it mattered little to you. You did what you chose to do; and if there were any "eternal" plans involved, they operated seamlessly (to you) with your choice.

From your perspective, you chose to do it. The reality is that your 'choice' is beyond your control for the most part most likely, especially in a world where god created everything. Of course god knows the future, because he knows the past and present, down the the minutest fluctuations of the smallest molecules, because he set it all in motion. You can't be held responsible for something that is beyond your control.

And, as a Christian, I already take on faith that I deserve to burn there. I take on faith that I should burn along with everyone else; and I would, if it weren't for Christ. But, I am sure you have heard that rant - so I will spare you.

I should have worded that better. I meant if, despite your confidence, you did wrong and ended up burning with the rest of us, would you not question it?

[NotBlinded]

It is most definitely true. Can a computer freely think, or feel? No, it does strictly what it has been programmed to do. Also, does a computer truly glorify its maker? It does, in the sense that his or her skill is seen in the creation; but the computer, by itself, cannot glorify the one who created it.

You are positing an ego on God, therefore, with this assumption taken as fact by you, you are stating you know the mind of God. If it was true that God has an ego, and you understand the mind of God, you should be able to answer all questions given to you about the contradiction between free will and predestination. If you cannot, then you can't honestly say you know the mind of God and should refrain from giving this Being/Essence human qualities that you say you know it has.

 

Why would God need to be glorified?

 

This is just another human trait attributed to God.

[Antlerman]

For example, I am a programmer. I can easily create a program that will constantly pop up and praise me in various ways. I could even create one to mimic my thoughts, actions, etc... However, I get almost nothing from this. After all, if I create a little pop-up that tells me I am the "Omnipotent Creator" it actually does me very little good. This is because I have pre-programmed this pop-up to do that; and it is merely doing my will because it has no choice.

God created man with free will so that man can better glorify Him.

And if you created a program with independent will, full autonomous freedom, granted as a gift from you to it (them), and if this program should choose to exercise that freewill gift and live its own life and not acknowledge you, wouldn't you say then that you were a big baby having a temper tantrum to get angry at it for not doing what you hoped it would do? Maybe you really didn't create life for the sake of life as an extension of you loving nature, but rather you were ultimate selfishness, pretending to be pure and selfless?

 

When people create life from their own bodies and that child exercises their own life in ways that the parent doesn't approve us, should they get a deer rifle and hunt the child down and kill him? How about burning his house down with him in it? Of course I am describing "God's Love" as described in the Bible. "Love me of your own free will, or else burn forever in hell". Praise his name! You can talk about mercy and all that, but mercy isn't necessary if were have free will.

 

Call it as it is: God created slaves who are disobeidient and will be killed if they don't get back to the fields and obey him without further question. Don't gloss this over with fancy marketing gloss about his benevolence.

[Paul_S]

 

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge?

You are correct, we are not told.

 

He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

 

I think so. But also to test the Serpent. We are told that the knowledge of the tree was God's knowledge (Genesis 3:22.) I was for mankind and the Serpent. God already knew His results.

 

 

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge?

I think so. You are correct, we are not told.

 

He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

 

I think so. But also to test the Serpent. We are told that the knowledge of the tree was God's knowledge (Genesis 3:22.) It was for mankind and the Serpent. God already knew His results.

 

 

 

 

 

Second, I've heard a lot about God being all knowing. If he is, then he knows in advance who will accept JC and who won't, so why not have the Souls start in Hell or Heaven? Why all the waiting?

 

As I understand it, Christ died for all mankind (1 John 2:2.) So everyone's name is in the book of life unless it is removed. (Psalm 69:27, 28; Revelation 3:5 (1 John 5:4,5); Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.)

 

Why the life we are to live?

[Mike D]

As I understand it, Christ died for all mankind (1 John 2:2.) So everyone's name is in the book of life unless it is removed. (Psalm 69:27, 28; Revelation 3:5 (1 John 5:4,5); Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.)

Why would a God need a book, much less a book to blot us out of? If he knows in advance who is going to be blotted out before the names are entered in the book to be blotted out, what's the point? Is the god forgetful?

[Paul_S]

As I understand it, Christ died for all mankind (1 John 2:2.) So everyone's name is in the book of life unless it is removed. (Psalm 69:27, 28; Revelation 3:5 (1 John 5:4,5); Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.)

Why would a God need a book, much less a book to blot us out of? If he knows in advance who is going to be blotted out before the names are entered in the book to be blotted out, what's the point? Is the god forgetful?

You are correct, God doesn't need them. They are povided for us, His creation, when we stand before the judgement. Again the judgment is for us. Don't worry, when the time comes, you'll then know it is right. (Bare in mind if there is no God, will never know. And Christians won't even know they were disappointed!)

[Mike D]

You are correct, God doesn't need them. They are povided for us, His creation, when we stand before the judgement.

Hmm, the book is provided for us and not him? So you're saying the god needs to actually show it to us (i.e. show us the "blot" where he erased us?) I gather this is a prop of sorts to create bit of extra drama on judgement day? Maybe it'll be fun for him to see us squirm and sweat a bit, just for shits and giggles? Otherwise he could just simply tell us we didn't make the cut and shoo us away to hell.....it's not like we have a say in the matter or something.

 

I think of all the gods, the Christian god is the most high maintenance....

 

P.S. How do you suppose the god has us indexed in his book so our names are not confused with the possibly millions of other people with the same name? If the book is for us only, we'll have to be able to find our name won't we?

[mwc]

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge?

You are correct, we are not told.

Not even a guess?

 

The even stranger thing is why isn't the tree of life mentioned up front? From the text alone humans are never told of the tree of life (at the time...since it's obviously in the story).

 

This detail alone should be the plot "twist" that screams morality tale (fable if you like). It's like YHWH saying "Ohhhh...look what you could have had if you wouldn't have eaten that fruit. Oh well. Thanks for playing. You two have been great sports."

 

He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

I think so. But also to test the Serpent. We are told that the knowledge of the tree was God's knowledge (Genesis 3:22.) I was for mankind and the Serpent. God already knew His results.

 

I'm not getting your reference:

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD [YHWH] God [elohiym] 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:

So YHWH tells the other gods that humans are now like them. The only difference between us and them is that they are eternal and we are not. With that in mind we are evicted from the garden in the next verse. So other than eternal life (and "supernatural" powers) humans are like the gods according to the bible. The Tower of Babel story further confirms this but is a bit off topic here.

 

Also, to paraphrase Freud, but sometimes a snake is just a snake. This is one of those times. Actually, prior to the "curse" the snake was a lizard-snake thing of some sort (since it would have had legs and all). Strangely enough this one snake, being cursed, affected every single snake from that point on even though the curse was specifically for just this specific one (how it mated with the other lizard-snake instead of just dying off I don't know).

 

mwc

[chefranden]

Third, as far as I understand him, God was around before there was anything at all, right? So how did he get these notions about beings and consciousness and selves and laughter and animals, and shitting and fucking? I mean, what was the inspiration for God's first thought?

 

Just some things to think about.

 

Damn good question! About a God so paranoid over pollution you might think, "Well then, why invent pollution?"

[Amelia]

And if you created a program with independent will, full autonomous freedom, granted as a gift from you to it (them), and if this program should choose to exercise that freewill gift and live its own life and not acknowledge you, wouldn't you say then that you were a big baby having a temper tantrum to get angry at it for not doing what you hoped it would do? Maybe you really didn't create life for the sake of life as an extension of you loving nature, but rather you were ultimate selfishness, pretending to be pure and selfless?

 

When people create life from their own bodies and that child exercises their own life in ways that the parent doesn't approve us, should they get a deer rifle and hunt the child down and kill him? How about burning his house down with him in it? Of course I am describing "God's Love" as described in the Bible. "Love me of your own free will, or else burn forever in hell". Praise his name! You can talk about mercy and all that, but mercy isn't necessary if were have free will.

 

Call it as it is: God created slaves who are disobeidient and will be killed if they don't get back to the fields and obey him without further question. Don't gloss this over with fancy marketing gloss about his benevolence.

 

Wow!! Couldn't have said it better myself!!

 

Cheers,

Amelia

[Paul_S]

You are correct, God doesn't need them. They are povided for us, His creation, when we stand before the judgement.

Hmm, the book is provided for us and not him? So you're saying the god needs to actually show it to us (i.e. show us the "blot" where he erased us?) I gather this is a prop of sorts to create bit of extra drama on judgement day? Maybe it'll be fun for him to see us squirm and sweat a bit, just for shits and giggles? Otherwise he could just simply tell us we didn't make the cut and shoo us away to hell.....it's not like we have a say in the matter or something.

 

I think of all the gods, the Christian god is the most high maintenance....

 

P.S. How do you suppose the god has us indexed in his book so our names are not confused with the possibly millions of other people with the same name? If the book is for us only, we'll have to be able to find our name won't we?

God is all knowing. And for us that is really incomprehensable to fully understand. We being finite beings and all. Only the names that are/remain in the book/scroll/record of life will escape all that is desevered/merited/earned by the deeds in the books/scrolls/records of our lives. (See Matthew 12:34-36; Revelation 20:11-15.)

[Paul_S]

First, why did God creat the Tree of Knowledge?

You are correct, we are not told.

Not even a guess?

 

The even stranger thing is why isn't the tree of life mentioned up front? From the text alone humans are never told of the tree of life (at the time...since it's obviously in the story).

 

This detail alone should be the plot "twist" that screams morality tale (fable if you like). It's like YHWH saying "Ohhhh...look what you could have had if you wouldn't have eaten that fruit. Oh well. Thanks for playing. You two have been great sports."

Man (Adam) was told he was freely to eat of all the trees (which would include the tree of life,) except for the one tree. (Genesis 2:16, 17.)

 

He definitely didn't need it for himself, so did he just put it there to test Adam & Eve?

I think so. But also to test the Serpent. We are told that the knowledge of the tree was God's knowledge (Genesis 3:22.) I was for mankind and the Serpent. God already knew His results.

 

I'm not getting your reference:

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD [YHWH] God [elohiym] 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:

So YHWH tells the other gods that humans are now like them. The only difference between us and them is that they are eternal and we are not. With that in mind we are evicted from the garden in the next verse. So other than eternal life (and "supernatural" powers) humans are like the gods according to the bible. The Tower of Babel story further confirms this but is a bit off topic here.

No, there were no other gods. God [elohiym] is plural. So He refers to Himself as Us.

[see Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10.] The knowledge of good and evil is God's knowledge, and the serpent knew this (Genesis 3:5!) So the whole human race is now held to God's standards. God being infinitely good, and man only finite. The knowledge of evil in mankind has its results: Hate, wars, murder etc. And the knowledge of good makes man self condemned (Matthew 12:37.)

Also, to paraphrase Freud, but sometimes a snake is just a snake. This is one of those times. Actually, prior to the "curse" the snake was a lizard-snake thing of some sort (since it would have had legs and all). Strangely enough this one snake, being cursed, affected every single snake from that point on even though the curse was specifically for just this specific one (how it mated with the other lizard-snake instead of just dying off I don't know).

 

mwc

I don't think think that is the case. (See Revelation 12:9.)(Matthew 25:41.) BTW, earthworms eat dirt, and no snakes I know of (Genesis 3:14.)

 

So it is, God's remedy is the only real hope (Hebrews 10:17.)

[Jun]

earthworms eat dirt,

 

You must be on a different planet to me, 'coz on my planet earthworms eat organic matter, things like decaying roots and leaves, and living organisms such as nematodes, protozoans, rotifers, bacteria, and fungi.

 

the whole human race is now held to God's standards.

 

In my world, the various human races follow the teachings of several thousand "gods," many thousands of them predating anything recorded in the Hebrew bible.

 

I am not held to the standards of your fictional "God."

 

Christ died for all mankind

 

"God" sacrificed himself to himself, to appease himself.

 

[mwc]

Man (Adam) was told he was freely to eat of all the trees (which would include the tree of life,) except for the one tree. (Genesis 2:16, 17.)

Thanks for stating the obvious. I've read the story.

 

Now, where was the Tree of Life? Can you tell me? Was it next to the Tree of Knowledge? Was it two trees over? A days journey? A years? Where was this tree in relation to the two people?

 

Stashed in the garden hidden among the other trees while the Tree of Knowledge is highlighted with a huge flashing neon sign doesn't sound like YHWH was too interested in humans getting their hands on it now does it?

 

Why didn't it get mentioned until AFTER they were kicked out of the garden and why was it NEVER mentioned to them? The snake never said anything. If he was trying to piss off god it seems the logical thing to do is make these humans immortal and then give them knowledge. This way it would make them untouchable. But the snake said nothing and neither did god. He knew they'd get booted out before becoming immortal and so not mentioning the Tree of Life to them would ensure they never ate from it (being omniscient and all).

 

No, there were no other gods. God [elohiym] is plural. So He refers to Himself as Us.

[see Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10.] The knowledge of good and evil is God's knowledge, and the serpent knew this (Genesis 3:5!) So the whole human race is now held to God's standards. God being infinitely good, and man only finite. The knowledge of evil in mankind has its results: Hate, wars, murder etc. And the knowledge of good makes man self condemned (Matthew 12:37.)

Are you certain there were no other gods? You are quite correct that elohiym is plural and unless you can cite a reference to a "royal we" in ancient Hebrew it is in fact a reference to multiple gods. I do realize that it can be used in the singular (and is quite often) but it is not in this case since the verbs in the sentence indicate that it is plural (now, I am no expert in ancient Hebrew and have deferred to the knowledge of those who are...so I cannot get into a pissing match over this). You might, of course, also try saying that the reference is to the other members in the trinity. Unless you can show that the ancient Hebrew authors were aware of a trinity and this was their intent then you are reading xian doctrine in where it doesn't belong.

 

So how did the serpent have possession of this knowledge? Are you saying all serpents possess the knowledge of the Jewish god or just this one serpent? I have a suspicion that you want to say that this serpent wasn't a serpent at all but the text doesn't support that assertion. Seems to me if humans ate the fruit and the knowledge was passed on that anything else that ate the fruit would also pass on the knowledge to its offspring as well.

 

Deuteronomy 6:4 `Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;

 

I'm glad you mentioned this. Note he's not THREE of anything. He would speak in singular form.

 

I was going to show Isaiah 43:10 but I like 11 better:

 

11 "I -- I [am] Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour."

 

Again, if I agree with this I contradict a plural in Genesis and I kind of have to dismiss a saviour with a name other than Jehovah. Now, since we're comparing apples to oranges (Genesis text to Isaiah and Deuteronomy texts) it doesn't really matter what I answer since we've altered the argument I was making. So here goes. The god of Genesis was originally part of a pantheon of gods but later, as the religion evolved, he merged in with the local deities and came out the sole god of a monotheistic religion. Depending on which texts you read you will see aspects of this evolution including henotheistic items as well. This, of course, is not a very satisfying debate and so we can pretend that there is some sort of unified belief system cover to cover if you like.

 

So, of course, backing up to verse 10 we see that the word for god is El and I don't want to head down the path showing this is really a Canaanite god and YHWH is likely his son (check a thread about this in the rants section about YHWH acknowledging other gods...it's all there and I don't want to repeat myself here if I don't have to).

 

I don't think think that is the case. (See Revelation 12:9.)(Matthew 25:41.) BTW, earthworms eat dirt, and no snakes I know of (Genesis 3:14.)

Okay, so you're going to invoke Revelations 12 (why not 20 as well?) which is supposed to be the mighty dragon, but is also a tiny dust eating serpent too. Do you see the problem there? Look! The mighty lion that is also on my lap. Both cats. Both purr (in a way). Both have lots of similarities. More similarities than a dragon and a serpent (snake sized).

 

Why don't you try a mighty dragon (which is not the same a some thing out of the middle ages...think Chinese dragon) and a Leviathan. Then go look up the mythology on the Leviathan and you will see that in addition to being in Job and Psalms you'll find this reference:

 

Isaiah 27:1

"In that day lay a charge doth Jehovah, With his sword -- the sharp, and the great, and the strong, On leviathan -- a fleeing serpent, And on leviathan -- a crooked serpent, And He hath slain the dragon that [is] in the sea."

 

Hmmm....a dragon. Lives in the sea. Is slain by a mighty sword. Also a serpent. Additional research into this myth will show that Leviathan is an ancient serpent. If you believe the creation story it would have been created on day 5. Other myths shows that it is an "evil" creature and that only god can strike this thing dead. Do I need to cite the parallels to these images in the Revelation or is everyone familiar enough with that aspect of the story?

 

What the heck. How mean is this thing? Let's just ask Job:

 

Job 3:8 "Let the cursers of day mark it, Who are ready to wake up Leviathan."

 

The cursed ones wake this thing up. Sounds like one mean monster.

 

Sure beats the hell out of tiny the dust eating tree snake for a mighty creature that terrorizes the world don't you think?

 

Of course the real dragon is another discussion altogether but it's not worth going into here.

 

Oh, and I thought earthworms just lived in dirt?

 

So it is, God's remedy is the only real hope (Hebrews 10:17.)

And ironically the verse you quote is actually part of the new covenant that the Jewish Messiah was to usher in when he appeared and did all those wonderful Messianic things that jesus never did. So with any luck, when the true messiah comes, these things will happen. Until then all we have are the words of someone who placed their bet on the wrong horse like so many that came before. Oh well.

 

mwc

[roman]

"God created man with free will so that man can better glorify Him."

 

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but you people get more absurd as time goes on.

 

There is no god.

 

Humans evolved, they were not created by "god."

 

Free Will is inherent in homo sapiens and to some extent in other primates as well.

 

You have implied that your all-powerful god has needs; that being, to be glorified.

 

You people make my head spin. Why can't you take life as it is, without fiction and terror of death? You have only a short time to be alive. Why continue wasting it with this ABSURD bullshit?

[Jun]

Man (Adam) was told he was freely to eat of all the trees (which would include the tree of life,) except for the one tree. (Genesis 2:16, 17.)

Thanks for stating the obvious. I've read the story.

 

Now, where was the Tree of Life? Can you tell me? Was it next to the Tree of Knowledge? Was it two trees over? A days journey? A years? Where was this tree in relation to the two people?

 

Stashed in the garden hidden among the other trees while the Tree of Knowledge is highlighted with a huge flashing neon sign doesn't sound like YHWH was too interested in humans getting their hands on it now does it?

 

Why didn't it get mentioned until AFTER they were kicked out of the garden and why was it NEVER mentioned to them? The snake never said anything. If he was trying to piss off god it seems the logical thing to do is make these humans immortal and then give them knowledge. This way it would make them untouchable. But the snake said nothing and neither did god. He knew they'd get booted out before becoming immortal and so not mentioning the Tree of Life to them would ensure they never ate from it (being omniscient and all).

 

No, there were no other gods. God [elohiym] is plural. So He refers to Himself as Us.

[see Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10.] The knowledge of good and evil is God's knowledge, and the serpent knew this (Genesis 3:5!) So the whole human race is now held to God's standards. God being infinitely good, and man only finite. The knowledge of evil in mankind has its results: Hate, wars, murder etc. And the knowledge of good makes man self condemned (Matthew 12:37.)

Are you certain there were no other gods? You are quite correct that elohiym is plural and unless you can cite a reference to a "royal we" in ancient Hebrew it is in fact a reference to multiple gods. I do realize that it can be used in the singular (and is quite often) but it is not in this case since the verbs in the sentence indicate that it is plural (now, I am no expert in ancient Hebrew and have deferred to the knowledge of those who are...so I cannot get into a pissing match over this). You might, of course, also try saying that the reference is to the other members in the trinity. Unless you can show that the ancient Hebrew authors were aware of a trinity and this was their intent then you are reading xian doctrine in where it doesn't belong.

 

So how did the serpent have possession of this knowledge? Are you saying all serpents possess the knowledge of the Jewish god or just this one serpent? I have a suspicion that you want to say that this serpent wasn't a serpent at all but the text doesn't support that assertion. Seems to me if humans ate the fruit and the knowledge was passed on that anything else that ate the fruit would also pass on the knowledge to its offspring as well.

 

Deuteronomy 6:4 `Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;

 

I'm glad you mentioned this. Note he's not THREE of anything. He would speak in singular form.

 

I was going to show Isaiah 43:10 but I like 11 better:

 

11 "I -- I [am] Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour."

 

Again, if I agree with this I contradict a plural in Genesis and I kind of have to dismiss a saviour with a name other than Jehovah. Now, since we're comparing apples to oranges (Genesis text to Isaiah and Deuteronomy texts) it doesn't really matter what I answer since we've altered the argument I was making. So here goes. The god of Genesis was originally part of a pantheon of gods but later, as the religion evolved, he merged in with the local deities and came out the sole god of a monotheistic religion. Depending on which texts you read you will see aspects of this evolution including henotheistic items as well. This, of course, is not a very satisfying debate and so we can pretend that there is some sort of unified belief system cover to cover if you like.

 

So, of course, backing up to verse 10 we see that the word for god is El and I don't want to head down the path showing this is really a Canaanite god and YHWH is likely his son (check a thread about this in the rants section about YHWH acknowledging other gods...it's all there and I don't want to repeat myself here if I don't have to).

 

I don't think think that is the case. (See Revelation 12:9.)(Matthew 25:41.) BTW, earthworms eat dirt, and no snakes I know of (Genesis 3:14.)

Okay, so you're going to invoke Revelations 12 (why not 20 as well?) which is supposed to be the mighty dragon, but is also a tiny dust eating serpent too. Do you see the problem there? Look! The mighty lion that is also on my lap. Both cats. Both purr (in a way). Both have lots of similarities. More similarities than a dragon and a serpent (snake sized).

 

Why don't you try a mighty dragon (which is not the same a some thing out of the middle ages...think Chinese dragon) and a Leviathan. Then go look up the mythology on the Leviathan and you will see that in addition to being in Job and Psalms you'll find this reference:

 

Isaiah 27:1

"In that day lay a charge doth Jehovah, With his sword -- the sharp, and the great, and the strong, On leviathan -- a fleeing serpent, And on leviathan -- a crooked serpent, And He hath slain the dragon that [is] in the sea."

 

Hmmm....a dragon. Lives in the sea. Is slain by a mighty sword. Also a serpent. Additional research into this myth will show that Leviathan is an ancient serpent. If you believe the creation story it would have been created on day 5. Other myths shows that it is an "evil" creature and that only god can strike this thing dead. Do I need to cite the parallels to these images in the Revelation or is everyone familiar enough with that aspect of the story?

 

What the heck. How mean is this thing? Let's just ask Job:

 

Job 3:8 "Let the cursers of day mark it, Who are ready to wake up Leviathan."

 

The cursed ones wake this thing up. Sounds like one mean monster.

 

Sure beats the hell out of tiny the dust eating tree snake for a mighty creature that terrorizes the world don't you think?

 

Of course the real dragon is another discussion altogether but it's not worth going into here.

 

Oh, and I thought earthworms just lived in dirt?

 

So it is, God's remedy is the only real hope (Hebrews 10:17.)

And ironically the verse you quote is actually part of the new covenant that the Jewish Messiah was to usher in when he appeared and did all those wonderful Messianic things that jesus never did. So with any luck, when the true messiah comes, these things will happen. Until then all we have are the words of someone who placed their bet on the wrong horse like so many that came before. Oh well.

 

mwc

 

Heck! I gotta get myself a bible and start studying up. If I had read this sh!t carefully when I was younger I coulda shaved off 20 years of wasted time worshipping fiction.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Paul S, you are NOT allowed simply to quote the Bible on this website as though it offers evidence of anything.