A challenge for Christians

[rjn]

The eating of the forbidden is an ancient meme that occurs in many different cultures. I believe the part in Genesis is a somewhat adapted version of this. It may have started out as something along the lines of this:
1. Ancient man ponders his destiny

2. Wonders why the Gods do not share immortality with him

3. Comes up with the idea of man transgressing against the gods

4. Man is punished for his transgression.

 

Drink and food considered to bestow the one who consumes it with immortality, strength or wisdom is a common theme in many myths, across many cultures. The Genesis account might be a reflection of this, adapted to the culture of the Ancient Israelites.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever, Genesis 3:22

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Reality?   And you say you have a grasp of 'reality'?

 

Stranger

 

I said no such thing.  I asked you to show us "how good and proud you are at ignoring reality."

 

Perhaps you do not ignore reality.  Perhaps you do.  I suspect the later and I suspect you are proud of it.  Help me out here.  Show me I am right.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

1) Yes I have heard of gap theory. It the theory that you use because your brain won't allow you to read the bible literally while at the same time accepting modern science. Therefore in order to over come the cognitive dissonance you come up with a massive span of time between verses in chapter 1 (gap theory), based on nothing, that allows you to keep your bible and science. BAA will be better suited to delve into this further. Interestingly we have been discussing this issue in the science forum for some time. I look forward to seeing BAA and a Christian converse about it.

 

2) Would you consider Satan/Serpent evil?

 

3) And as I said, Gods best is atrocious

 

4) I also assume people like TRP, Josh, BAA, sdelsolray are wiser and more knowledgeable than I am. Why? Because what they post is generally of a nature of ideas etc I hadn't thought of. They obviously, at this point, have some greater wisdom and knowledge than me. Conversely when I read a "wise" God's holy book that is riddled with falsehoods, failed prophesies and is just plain wrong I can safely assume that God is less wise than me.

 

5) Before the creation of anything what was there?

 

Cheers

LF

 

 

 

 

1.)  Good, I look forward also.

 

2.) Yes

 

3.)  Your opinion

 

4.)  Your assumption.

 

5.) God 

 

Stranger

 

@Stranger

What is this? One word answer game?

 

3 & 4 - At least be can both agree that we both have opinions and assumptions. I can show mine to have basis for being true, you have a closed belief that you are failing to show is anything but theological argument ground in imagination not reality.

 

2 and 5. So yes you consider the serpent/satan to be evil, and before there was anything you say there was god. Therefore you ipso facto believe God created everything. In fact in a response to another member you said God created Satan.

 

How then did god create satan, without also creating the ability of satan to be evil? Is a perfect being incapable of creating perfect beings? Or did god intentionally create imperfect beings knowing full well before he created them that they would be imperfect, and having the choice to create them perfect, created them imperfect instead?

 

[Astreja]

 

Yes, I do believe in a literal Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil.  And I believe Adam and Eve were real persons.

 

Oh, dear.  I'm so sorry to hear that.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for confirming that you hold to Gap theory, Stranger.

 

Can you please now specify if reconcile Genesis 1 : 1 with what science tells us about the origin of the cosmos?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Stranger]

 

 

I said no such thing.  I asked you to show us "how good and proud you are at ignoring reality."

 

Perhaps you do not ignore reality.  Perhaps you do.  I suspect the later and I suspect you are proud of it.  Help me out here.  Show me I am right.

 

I do not ignore reality of the physical world.  Neither do I ignore the reality of the spiritual world.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

 

 

This is to LogicalFallacy post #103.  It didn't show up when I quoted it.

 

Concerning the creation of satan I would say that God created both satan and man with the ability to know evil.   Both angels and man rebelled against God.  God created them just like He wanted them.   Could He have created them so that they would not know or turn to evil.  Of course.  But that is not what He wanted.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Thank you for confirming that you hold to Gap theory, Stranger.

 

Can you please now specify if reconcile Genesis 1 : 1 with what science tells us about the origin of the cosmos?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Last I heard science doesn't know the origin of the universe.  Concerning Gen. (1:1) I believe it speaks to original creation. 

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

This is to LogicalFallacy post #103.  It didn't show up when I quoted it.

 

Concerning the creation of satan I would say that God created both satan and man with the ability to know evil.   Both angels and man rebelled against God.  God created them just like He wanted them.   Could He have created them so that they would not know or turn to evil.  Of course.  But that is not what He wanted.

 

Stranger

 

(Our quoting system sometimes sucks a dummy sadly)

 

Two points

 

1) You can't have god creating satan and man with the ability to know evil without there being an evil to know. How was there an 'evil' for satan and man to have the ability to know? Where did evil come from?

 

2) In previous posts you have stated that you believe Genesis is literal, that you adhere to gap theory, and that you think the tree of knowledge of good and evil and adam and eve were literal. The Bible states creation was done in 7 days. How do you decide what parts are literal in the bible, and what parts require gap theories? The gap theory is supposed to take care of the age of universe problem. However there is a gap in the theory - light is created on day 1. Man is created on day 6. We can calculate the minimum number of years passed to get us to Adam - roughly 6,000 years ago. Now, observations tell us that light has travelling billions of years across the galaxy for us to be able to see distant galaxies. How do you propose to resolve this conflict?

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Last I heard science doesn't know the origin of the universe.  Concerning Gen. (1:1) I believe it speaks to original creation. 

 

Stranger

 

Did you get your science education from a Christian school? If so you might want to brush up on what the current science tells us - I've had to. Mind blowing.

[♦ ficino ♦]

hey guys, I just realized: Ironhorse has not been around for a long time. I sort of miss the dude's way of answering by acknowledging his incomprehension, affirming his simple faith, and posting a song lyric.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

No.  I have a differnet view of the creation.  I hold to what is known as the 'gap theory'.  Are you familiar?

 

The "gap theory" attepts to account for the age of the earth and the fossil record by inserting time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. However, allowing for fossilization at that time requires death before "the fall." Please explain how you reconcile that with the belief that death was the result of the later act of Adam & Eve eating magical fruit.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't do homework assigments.  

 

Stranger

 

We can tell.

 

 

God created Lucifer.  And Lucifer was a murderer from the begining.    What I can say is that God created Lucifer knowing who he was.   And He created him for His own purpose.  

 

Stranger

 

Contrary to Christians' common misconception, "Lucifer" is not a name for Satan. It's a transliteration of the Latin translation of a Hebrew word meaning "day star" or "morning star." The transliteration "Lucifer" is found only once in the KJV (Isaiah 14) and is used in reference to the king of Babylon. Satan is not mentioned anywhere in that passage.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Last I heard science doesn't know the origin of the universe.  Concerning Gen. (1:1) I believe it speaks to original creation. 

 

Stranger

 

Then please cite where you heard that science doesn't know about the origin of the universe, Stranger.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I'm quite interested in seeing where the discussion between Stranger and BAA goes, and I don't want to detract from that, but I do have one more question for Stranger that I'm curious about.

 

If death was the result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but Adam & Eve would've lived forever if they'd eaten from the Tree of Life, then what would've happened if they had not eaten from either magical tree? Would they have lived forever because of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge or would they have died because of not eating from the Tree of Life?

 

[Stranger]

 

 

(Our quoting system sometimes sucks a dummy sadly)

 

Two points

 

1) You can't have god creating satan and man with the ability to know evil without there being an evil to know. How was there an 'evil' for satan and man to have the ability to know? Where did evil come from?

 

2) In previous posts you have stated that you believe Genesis is literal, that you adhere to gap theory, and that you think the tree of knowledge of good and evil and adam and eve were literal. The Bible states creation was done in 7 days. How do you decide what parts are literal in the bible, and what parts require gap theories? The gap theory is supposed to take care of the age of universe problem. However there is a gap in the theory - light is created on day 1. Man is created on day 6. We can calculate the minimum number of years passed to get us to Adam - roughly 6,000 years ago. Now, observations tell us that light has travelling billions of years across the galaxy for us to be able to see distant galaxies. How do you propose to resolve this conflict?

 

 

 

1.)  Indeed, there must be an evil to know.  The only answer I have, and I can only go back this far,  is that God had the knowledge of good and evil.  (Gen. 3:22)   Which means there was an evil to know.     One might say anything outside the will of God is evil.  

 

2.)  I don't see the Gap Theory as non-literal.   I see it as literal.  I know it was used by some Christians to explain the age of the universe, but that is not why I hold to it.  I believe the Bible teaches it.   I believe I can prove it in the Bible, or at least it as a possibility,  but then I don't think that is what you want.  If so, let me know.  It would be somewhat lengthy.  

 

To take the Bible literally is to allow for symbolic language, metaphors, allegories if they are being used.  When Christ says He is the door, we know He is not saying He is a 7X3 piece of wood.   But we do not interpret the Bible symbolically.  In other words not everything is a symbol.  And just because something is spiritual or supernatural that is being spoken of is not a reason to symbolize it.    Just like with the serpent in the garden.  There is no reason to symbolize it just because it is supernatural.   The Bible deals with the supernatural.  So we should expect it.

 

Concerning the light question first consider that the light brought forth on the first day was not light from the sun.  That would not appear until the fourth day.  The light on the first day was the light of God.   Though man may be some 6000 years old, the creation I believe is much, much older.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Did you get your science education from a Christian school? If so you might want to brush up on what the current science tells us - I've had to. Mind blowing.

 

Appreciate the advice.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

The "gap theory" attepts to account for the age of the earth and the fossil record by inserting time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. However, allowing for fossilization at that time requires death before "the fall." Please explain how you reconcile that with the belief that death was the result of the later act of Adam & Eve eating magical fruit.

 

 

We can tell.

 

 

Contrary to Christians' common misconception, "Lucifer" is not a name for Satan. It's a transliteration of the Latin translation of a Hebrew word meaning "day star" or "morning star." The transliteration "Lucifer" is found only once in the KJV (Isaiah 14) and is used in reference to the king of Babylon. Satan is not mentioned anywhere in that passage.

 

 

Death for the human race entered with Adam eating the fruit.  The world that was destroyed by water and darkness in (Gen. 1:2) no doubt involved the death of whoever existed on it.  

 

Whether you want to say 'Lucifer' or 'day star' in Is. 14, I believe it is still a reference to Satan and his initial rebellion against God.  It is common in the prophets to be speaking of an earthly ruler or person and then go beyond that to address another.  You see it again in (Ez.28) .  And you see it concerning Jesus Christ in many passages.  (Ps.22) comes to mind first. 

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Then please cite where you heard that science doesn't know about the origin of the universe, Stranger.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

All you get from science are theories about the origin of the universe.   And those change over time.  Science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Stranger

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Whether you want to say 'Lucifer' or 'day star' in Is. 14, I believe it is still a reference to Satan and his initial rebellion against God.  It is common in the prophets to be speaking of an earthly ruler or person and then go beyond that to address another.

 

It does NOT go on to "address" Satan. Satan is NOT mentioned anywhere in the passage. The notion that it's about Satan rather than the person the passage explicitly says it's about is a typical Christian twisting of the text by completely ignoring its context.

 

 

You see it again in (Ez.28) .  And you see it concerning Jesus Christ in many passages.  (Ps.22) comes to mind first. 

 

Stranger

 

Again, that's typical of Christians, taking things out of context in order to make them be what they want them to be. Even the NT writers did it. It's quite dishonest to disregard the context of a passage in order to try to turn it into something different from what it actually says. 

 

 

 

Death for the human race entered with Adam eating the fruit.  The world that was destroyed by water and darkness in (Gen. 1:2) no doubt involved the death of whoever existed on it.  

 

So you disagree with the standard Christian view that all death is the result of "the fall"? If there was already death in creation, then why would God refer to it all as "good"?

 

[Astreja]

 

All you get from science are theories about the origin of the universe.   And those change over time.  Science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Stranger

 

*facepalm*

 

All you have is a hypothesis based on an anthology of foreign folk tales purporting to be the word of a god.

 

A very, very stupid god.

 

I, for one, am going to stick with science, as it regularly updates its knowledge base as new data comes in.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

All you get from science are theories about the origin of the universe.   And those change over time.  Science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Stranger

 

Science grows and adapts to new information. It's an ongoing, self-correcting field. It improves over time.

 

The Bible, on the other hand, is still the same ignoramous nonsense that it's been for millennia.

 

Thus, it's pretty obvious which one is a much better path to truth.

 

[Storm]

 

 

I doubt Adam and Eve did understand what all death meant.  They didn't understand fully that until they saw the body of Abel after Cain killed him.   But they did understand they were not to eat of the tree.   God didn't want them to obey because 'all hell may break lose'.  God wanted them to obey simply because He said so.  So,  it wasn't necessary that they know the full implications of what they were doing.  

 

Well, as I said, it wasnt' a set up in that they knew God's will in this matter. Adam and Eve were not toddlers.   They were mature and perfect, without sin.    It was a set up in that it was part of God's overall plan.   

 

Stranger

The very interesting thing about much of what you have stated in this quote is that you have assumed much. You assume they understood what death was. But the bible makes no indication of this. You assume that they understood they were not to eat of the tree. But its one thing to know not to do something, but something different to understand why. You are essentially advocating that God wants to be loved by mindless drones by stating that he just wanted them to obey without understanding why.

 

Your statement that "Adam and Eve were not toddlers.   They were mature and perfect, without sin." is very problematic. How did they achieve maturity? If they were created as adults, where did they get the information that they had? When you and I reached adulthood, we had 18+ years of experience in making mistakes, learning, education, experiences,etc. Did Adam and Eve have this? How did they gain maturity? How did God determine what to "download" into their brains that made them "mature"?

 

Based on the handful of lines you have typed out here, you are essentially saying that God wants mindless, uneducated, robots to love him and do his bidding. Then you essentially are saying that the whole thing was designed by him to fail, because they weren't mindless and ignorantly obedient. That makes no sense and I have trouble understanding how you don't see the foolishness in what you believe.

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

The very interesting thing about much of what you have stated in this quote is that you have assumed much. You assume they understood what death was. But the bible makes no indication of this. You assume that they understood they were not to eat of the tree. But its one thing to know not to do something, but something different to understand why. You are essentially advocating that God wants to be loved by mindless drones by stating that he just wanted them to obey without understanding why.

 

Your statement that "Adam and Eve were not toddlers.   They were mature and perfect, without sin." is very problematic. How did they achieve maturity? If they were created as adults, where did they get the information that they had? When you and I reached adulthood, we had 18+ years of experience in making mistakes, learning, education, experiences,etc. Did Adam and Eve have this? How did they gain maturity? How did God determine what to "download" into their brains that made them "mature"?

 

Based on the handful of lines you have typed out here, you are essentially saying that God wants mindless, uneducated, robots to love him and do his bidding. Then you essentially are saying that the whole thing was designed by him to fail, because they weren't mindless and ignorantly obedient. That makes no sense and I have trouble understanding how you don't see the foolishness in what you believe.

 

Great points. I wish I hadn't already depleted my likes for the day.

 

Same goes for Astreja's last post.

 

[Stranger]

 

I'm quite interested in seeing where the discussion between Stranger and BAA goes, and I don't want to detract from that, but I do have one more question for Stranger that I'm curious about.

 

If death was the result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but Adam & Eve would've lived forever if they'd eaten from the Tree of Life, then what would've happened if they had not eaten from either magical tree? Would they have lived forever because of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge or would they have died because of not eating from the Tree of Life?

 

 

As long as they did not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then they did not disobey God.   They were allowed to eat of any tree of the garden other than that.  It doesn't say they had to eat.  But the one they could not eat of was defined. 

 

Not eating from any tree is not addressed.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

It does NOT go on to "address" Satan. Satan is NOT mentioned anywhere in the passage. The notion that it's about Satan rather than the person the passage explicitly says it's about is a typical Christian twisting of the text by completely ignoring its context.

 

 

Again, that's typical of Christians, taking things out of context in order to make them be what they want them to be. Even the NT writers did it. It's quite dishonest to disregard the context of a passage in order to try to turn it into something different from what it actually says. 

 

 

So you disagree with the standard Christian view that all death is the result of "the fall"? If there was already death in creation, then why would God refer to it all as "good"?

 

 

Satan has many names in Scripture.  As I said, the prophets are prophets.  They see things both future and in the past.  It is common in Scripture.  

 

No one is disregarding context.   

 

As to the 6 day re-creation, all was good.  As I said, there must have been death when the earth was placed in it's condition in (Gen. 1:2)

 

Stranger