Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Another example of your tenuous grasp of the truth, Ed.

 

I didn't say that you used faith alone either.  Neither of us did.  That's a distortion of the facts on your part.

 

What I did say today was this.

 

Edgarcito followed his usual line of disparaging logic and promoting faith.  But his faith failed him.  He made the faith-based assertion that everyone has the opportunity to know god through Jesus Christ.  But this is an un-biblical error and false.  As I was able to demonstrate yesterday using logic.

 

See?

 

Nowhere did I say or imply that you used faith alone.  

 

Please stop lying!

 

 

 

 

Your assertion yesterday was that Christ was only available to a given timeframe?  Go ahead, make your case

[walterpthefirst]

 

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So Jesus wasn't there in the beginning?

 

Yesterday you admitted that the resurrected Jesus was not present in Eden.

 

Or do I now have to cite that admission again?

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Your assertion yesterday was that Christ was only available to a given timeframe?  Go ahead, make your case

 

I don't need to.

 

Yesterday you admitted that you erred.

 

Do you want me to cite that admission?

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

Yesterday you admitted that the resurrected Jesus was not present in Eden.

 

Or do I now have to cite that admission again?

Either I didn't read your post adequately or I was tired and made a mistake.  I understand you to have said that Jesus was only available to a certain timeframe.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So Jesus wasn't there in the beginning?

No, the plural language God used in Genesis was a left over from its polytheistic origins. As well as when it speaks of the "sons of God" taking for themselves wives of the children of men. And that their offspring were mighty men. 

 

Genesis 6

 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

These were the sons of El. The most high God. The God Jesus called out to on the cross. 

 

This also gives trinitarians some complications. If God the father, son, and holy ghost are all one God. And God is talking to Jesus in creation...... does that mean he's talking to himself?  

 

 

But none of that really matters becuase, The creation story is a myth. The Adam and Eve section happens after God skips millions of years of dinosaurs, creates a dome to separate the waters so we could have a place to live. And puts the flat earth on pillars. Not to mention he puts Adam straight to gardening even though we know humans spent millions of years as hunter/gatherers. 

 

So really. None of this happened. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Either I didn't read your post adequately or I was tired and made a mistake.  I understand you to have said that Jesus was only available to a certain timeframe.

 

I think its really according to whether or not your a trinitarian. I don't believe that Jesus, God the father, and God the holy ghost were originally meant to be one, in the sense that they are one being. The wording is just way to weird for that. Why would Jesus give all that glory to God the father? Why would he cry out to God asking him why he had forsaken him on the cross? Why did he pray to his father? It just doesn't make sense that God zapped himself into an infant and lived life as a human and called himself God's son. Then prayed to himself in heaven calling himself father. 

 

Anyway. If your trinitarian. I don't see how there is anyway Jesus could have been in the beginning even though it does say he had ways been. 

 

John 17

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

I wasn't trinitarian so it was easy to see that Jesus was there with God in the beginning. But for the trinitarian they would need to take the stance that Jesus wasn't around for about 5000 years after creation. Why would God be conversing with his future self as Jesus? It doesn't make sense. But then a lot of the Bible doesn't. So .... yeah. 

 

Just more of that big ole puzzle you were talking about Ed. 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Either I didn't read your post adequately or I was tired and made a mistake.  I understand you to have said that Jesus was only available to a certain timeframe.

 

Very well.  In the face of your lies and denials I'm obliged to teach you a biblical lesson, Edgarcito.

 

 

Matthew 27 : 50 - 53.  (also Mark 15 : 38 and Luke 23 : 45)

 

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. The earth shook, the rocks split 

52 and 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 went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

 

Before the moment of Jesus' death on the cross the people of Israel were separated from the direct presence of god by the temple curtain.  This separation began the moment Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of Eden.  Up until the tearing of the temple curtain only certain people could approach god and be in his close presence in the Most Holy Place.  Moses, Joshua, the Levitical priests and certain elders of the twelve tribes of Israel were permitted to enter into god's presence.  (See Exodus 24 : 9 - 11)  

 

The apostle Paul explains this new access to god via Jesus to the Jews in Hebrews 10 : 19 - 22.

 

19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 

20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 

21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 

22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 

 

Before the death of Jesus on the cross time there was NO ACCESS to god through Jesus for the Jews.

Access to god through Jesus for the Gentiles didn't happen until Acts 10 : 44 - 48.

 

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 

45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 

46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, 

47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 

48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

 

So there we have it, straight from the pages of the bible, Edgarcito.  

Direct access to god through Jesus for everyone, Jews and Gentiles, didn't happen until years after Jesus' death and resurrection.  That is the biblical timeframe of human access to god through Jesus.  There was no access to god via Jesus before the times set down in scripture.

 

Yes, you are right that Jesus was there in the beginning.  But what you have overlooked or forgotten was that Adam and Eve were forced out of his presence at the point of a flaming sword.  After that time only a few select people could approach god or see his face.  And that enforced separation was ended in two phases.  First, for the Jews, when Jesus died and the temple curtain was torn in two and then for the Gentiles, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them in Caesarea, at the house of Cornelius. 

 

So, your faith lead you astray.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

46 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Before the death of Jesus on the cross time there was NO ACCESS to god through Jesus for the Jews.

Access to god through Jesus for the Gentiles didn't happen

 

I must of missed a post er two. Was Ed saying that they could have believed on Jesus in the Garden? 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I thought he was just saying that he was there because of all the new testament scriptures that say he was there from the beginning. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Your assertion yesterday was that Christ was only available to a given timeframe?  Go ahead, make your case

 

Can you clarify what you are trying to say about Jesus in the beginning please? 

 

What are you suggesting? 

 

And please back up whatever that is with scriptural proof to support your stance. 

[walterpthefirst]

17 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I thought he was just saying that he was there because of all the new testament scriptures that say he was there from the beginning. 

 

It all started with what Ed wrote here, DB.

 

Pay close attention here.

Not knowing, she reasoned in the wrong direction.  God sends Jesus that we may have a more direct understanding of who He is.  We KNOW Satan, we live Satan.  We have the opportunity to know God through Christ.  Was actually his prayer I'm remembering.  And communion, "do not quit meeting together", that we may know each other where we don' t have work so hard to have grace for each other.  

Mini-sermon over.  Back to your regular scheduled programming.

 

I replied to this.

 

Yes, Eve was penalised by god for being unable to understand (reason) the difference between good and evil.

This not knowing, this shortfall in her reasoning faculties was caused by god, not her.

Therefore, she was penalised by god for something he was the cause of and was responsible for.

We are back to your garden in Texas Ed, where the fault and blame for the rattler causing harm is down to you.

Not to your child.

The child is never to blame for the intent of the parent to expose them to harm.

 

He responded, saying...

 

The good news is we have a choice....

 

To which I replied.

 

 

Of what help to Eve could Jesus have been, either in Eden or out of it?

God didn't incarnate himself as Jesus until thousands of years after Eve was dust.

She had no opportunity to know god as Christ.

As I said, the child is never to blame for the intent of the parent to expose them to harm.

But according to you, they must suffer for what they should never have been forced to do  -  without hope of redemption.

 

If you can show that Jesus had any part to play in the lives of Adam and Eve, please do so, Edgarcito.

 

He then said...

 

Doesn't it say he was there in the beginning.

 

Which I then refuted.

 

 

But not as the pure and sinless blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.

THAT is the Christ you were referring to when you said that we have an opportunity to know god through Christ.

The Christ who was born of the virgin Mary, who was crucified and who rose again on the third day.

THAT Christ didn't exist in Eden for Eve's benefit, comfort, guidance and redemption.

And what's more she was forced out of god's presence at the point of a flaming sword!

You are shifting the goalposts.

You're argument works only for people who live in post-resurrection times.

Like us.

Not Eve.

 

And then he conceded that he was wrong.

 

My mistake....I see your point.  Wasn't intentional, just getting tired.  

 

But about 6 hours ago he started backpedalling and denying that he conceded that he was wrong.

 

So Jesus wasn't there in the beginning?

Your assertion yesterday was that Christ was only available to a given timeframe?  Go ahead, make your case.

Either I didn't read your post adequately or I was tired and made a mistake.  I understand you to have said that Jesus was only available to a certain timeframe.

 

And I've just made my case DB, showing from scripture that after Eden Jesus wasn't available to ANYBODY until the moment he died on the cross and even then, only the Jews.  The separation of god from his people that began with the banishing of Adam and Eve lasted thousands of years.  We Gentiles had to wait until years later, until the Holy Spirit was poured out on the first Gentile believers in Caesarea.  

 

Edgarcito is tripping himself up by thinking (wrongly) that because god is omnipresent Jesus must be omnipresent too.  He hasn't understood that Jesus the Messiah, Saviour and Son of god didn't physically exist on Earth until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the virgin Mary.  And nobody had access to god via him until he died.  The tearing of the temple curtain from heaven down to earth was god's sign that the separation which began in Eden was coming to an end.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

It all started with what Ed wrote here, DB.

 

Pay close attention here.

Not knowing, she reasoned in the wrong direction.  God sends Jesus that we may have a more direct understanding of who He is.  We KNOW Satan, we live Satan.  We have the opportunity to know God through Christ.  Was actually his prayer I'm remembering.  And communion, "do not quit meeting together", that we may know each other where we don' t have work so hard to have grace for each other.  

Mini-sermon over.  Back to your regular scheduled programming.

 

I replied to this.

 

Yes, Eve was penalised by god for being unable to understand (reason) the difference between good and evil.

This not knowing, this shortfall in her reasoning faculties was caused by god, not her.

Therefore, she was penalised by god for something he was the cause of and was responsible for.

We are back to your garden in Texas Ed, where the fault and blame for the rattler causing harm is down to you.

Not to your child.

The child is never to blame for the intent of the parent to expose them to harm.

 

He responded, saying...

 

The good news is we have a choice....

 

To which I replied.

 

 

Of what help to Eve could Jesus have been, either in Eden or out of it?

God didn't incarnate himself as Jesus until thousands of years after Eve was dust.

She had no opportunity to know god as Christ.

As I said, the child is never to blame for the intent of the parent to expose them to harm.

But according to you, they must suffer for what they should never have been forced to do  -  without hope of redemption.

 

If you can show that Jesus had any part to play in the lives of Adam and Eve, please do so, Edgarcito.

 

He then said...

 

Doesn't it say he was there in the beginning.

 

Which I then refuted.

 

 

But not as the pure and sinless blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.

THAT is the Christ you were referring to when you said that we have an opportunity to know god through Christ.

The Christ who was born of the virgin Mary, who was crucified and who rose again on the third day.

THAT Christ didn't exist in Eden for Eve's benefit, comfort, guidance and redemption.

And what's more she was forced out of god's presence at the point of a flaming sword!

You are shifting the goalposts.

You're argument works only for people who live in post-resurrection times.

Like us.

Not Eve.

 

And then he conceded that he was wrong.

 

My mistake....I see your point.  Wasn't intentional, just getting tired.  

 

But about 6 hours ago he started backpedalling and denying that he conceded that he was wrong.

 

So Jesus wasn't there in the beginning?

Your assertion yesterday was that Christ was only available to a given timeframe?  Go ahead, make your case.

Either I didn't read your post adequately or I was tired and made a mistake.  I understand you to have said that Jesus was only available to a certain timeframe.

 

And I've just made my case DB, showing from scripture that after Eden Jesus wasn't available to ANYBODY until the moment he died on the cross and even then, only the Jews.  The separation of god from his people that began with the banishing of Adam and Eve lasted thousands of years.  We Gentiles had to wait until years later, until the Holy Spirit was poured out on the first Gentile believers in Caesarea.  

 

Edgarcito is tripping himself up by thinking (wrongly) that because god is omnipresent Jesus must be omnipresent too.  He hasn't understood that Jesus the Messiah, Saviour and Son of god didn't physically exist on Earth until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the virgin Mary.  And nobody had access to god via him until he died.  The tearing of the temple curtain from heaven down to earth was god's sign that the separation which began in Eden was coming to an end.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Thank you walter. 

 

Thats much better seeing it all laid out on one post. Yeah your right. Seems like Ed is grasping at straws. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Thank you walter. 

 

Thats much better seeing it all laid out on one post. Yeah your right. Seems like Ed is grasping at straws. 

 

I'm glad to have cleared that up for you, DB.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I don't think that Eve lied, mwc.

 

Instead she was at the end of a faulty and broken chain of command that was god's doing and his fault.  You'll notice that god issues his warning about the forbidden tree only to Adam.  At that time he didn't have a helpmate and so Eve was created from his rib after Adam realized that none of the animals would be suitable helpmate for him in his job of looking after god's garden.

 

Eve never heard god's warning from god himself.  

     Alright, we might need to look into this a bit further.

 

     Eve had the opportunity to get the command from god, Adam or both (there is another option here I'm leaving out for the moment).

 

     What reason(s) do we have to assume that Adam provided her with this information?  What reason(s) do we have to assume that god provided her with this information?

 

     Both had the opportunity.  Only god had the necessity since Adam has no obligation whatsoever to pass along this information especially considering he's alone when the command is issued.  Only one is quoted by Eve as giving the command which is god.  All this, I believe, tilts the field towards him being the one providing her with this information.

 

 

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

She heard it from Adam's lips.  According to scripture it is impossible for god to lie or to make a mistake.  But it is entirely possible for human beings to err, even when they are trying to tell the truth.  If you consider god's warning he couched it in terms that would have been totally unfamiliar, if not incomprehensible to Adam.  What was death?  All Adam can possibly know is that it's something that will happen to him on the day he eats from the forbidden tree. 

     As I show above Adam has no obligation nor reason to inform Eve of this prohibition.  At best you might have her ask why Adam doesn't go near a specific tree and he'd answer "God told me not to eat from that tree."  He'd have to lie to widen the prohibition to Eve since she didn't exist yet.

 

     Now, could Adam know what death was?  That depends but probably yes.  There was a Tree of Life in the middle of the garden apparently right next to the Tree of Knowledge.  Also, it would seem, no one ate from that tree either.  If immortality was the norm then the tree was redundant unless we have a situation where immortality could be lost but the only way that seems to be able to happen is to disobey god and that results in ejection from the garden and losing access to the tree which makes it pointless.

 

     Given that it seems that immortality was not the norm.  Since everything was mortal Adam should be able to simply observe seasonal plants, short-lived animals and insects to discover the life-cycle in a fairly short amount of time.  We should also assume that accidents could and did occur which would result in death for various animals as well.  This all assumes the garden was naturalistic and not something more supernatural akin to heaven where none of these things are possible which seems to be a common assertion.

 

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

For all he knows death could be something neutral or even desirable, rather than something to be feared.  So, of what value as a deterrent was god's warning?  The answer is, none at all.  Surprisingly for a being that supposedly knows all things god didn't know in advance that his warning to Adam was useless.  He also didn't seem to know in advance that Adam would garble this useless warning when he relayed it to Eve.

     After observing the death of various plants and animals he would have to decide for himself if death was something to be feared.  If we were to go with the assumption that it was Adam, and not god or Eve, that added that additional clause to the command, then Adam did fear it since he made the command more dire.  He was so afraid that he wasn't not only going to eat the fruit but he wasn't going to even touch it.

 

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, rather than Eve deliberately lying, I submit that her misunderstanding of god's warning was due to a combination of god's malicious intent and Adam's confusion.  We read that it was her and not Adam who was targeted by the serpent/Satan.  Are we surprised by this?  No, of course not.  Whatever or whoever the serpent was it makes perfect sense for it to target the weakest link in the chain - Eve.  

     What did she misunderstand?  She had a stronger version of the command than Adam was actually given.  Just as I said above.  God said do not eat and she said to not eat or even touch.  It's more powerful not less.  This makes her a more difficult target.  Taking the original prohibition they could have taken all the fruit and bathed in it just so long as they didn't consume it while doing so.

 

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Please note mwc that I've attributed malicious intent to god when it comes to his warning Adam about the tree.  I do this because an all-knowing, all-powerful and loving god would not and could not make a mistake that would put his children in harm's way.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it was god's intent to confuse Adam, his intent that Eve be further confused and his intent that she be a soft target for the serpent/Satan.

 

This, of course, means that the god described in Eden is evil.

     As you state above god to lie or make a mistake and yet we have two slightly different commands as coming from god.  Someone, Adam, Eve or god, modified that command.  Since we're told god does not do this but humans do we should simply rule out god and also assume that god gave identical prohibitions to Adam and then later to Eve.  Eve then, while speaking to the snake, offered up her modified version of the command.

 

     As an aside no animal, including the serpent, is given such a command.  If we assume the point of view of the serpent it could be entirely true that the tree is fine for eating and, in fact, eating from the tree does not result in death.  This would mean that he is not making any sort of an "attack" when confronting Eve on this issue but perhaps wondering why humans aren't taking part what the rest of the animals are freely doing?  His having knowledge of morals wouldn't make him aware of the command nor would it make him not question if she were incorrect if he, and others, had eaten from the tree(s) without issue.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

Now, could Adam know what death was?  That depends but probably yes.  There was a Tree of Life in the middle of the garden apparently right next to the Tree of Knowledge.  Also, it would seem, no one ate from that tree either.  If immortality was the norm then the tree was redundant unless we have a situation where immortality could be lost but the only way that seems to be able to happen is to disobey god and that results in ejection from the garden and losing access to the tree which makes it pointless.

 

     Given that it seems that immortality was not the norm.  Since everything was mortal Adam should be able to simply observe seasonal plants, short-lived animals and insects to discover the life-cycle in a fairly short amount of time.  We should also assume that accidents could and did occur which would result in death for various animals as well.  This all assumes the garden was naturalistic and not something more supernatural akin to heaven where none of these things are possible which seems to be a common assertion.

I think you're reading much more into the story than what is actually written in the text.  However, for the sake of argument, if we concede that death was a natural occurrence with which Adam would be familiar through his own observation (a concession I'm not willing to make, mind you), then would we not also have to concede the possibility that, at some point, Adam observed an inch worm or wasp eat of the Tree of Life and not die?  After all, as you said, 

 

2 hours ago, mwc said:

no animal, including the serpent, is given such a command

So, the animals would be free to eat of the Tree of Life as well, having never been commanded otherwise.

 

If we are further conceding that Adam and Eve were capable of some level of reasoning, would it not have become clear to Adam, based on his observations, that even if he ate of the Tree of Knowledge, he could simply undo the consequence of death by eating from the Tree of Life?  god seems to admit this possibility in his decision to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden.

 

Or, are you suggesting that the risk/benefit involved with both of the Trees was only applicable to humans?  If so, based on what we know about chemistry, absorption, metabolism, and toxicity, the only explanation as to how the Tree of Knowledge would only kill people and not orangutans would have to be magic.

 

This leaves us also needing an explanation for why the animals would die in the original, pre-Fall Eden, but not the humans.  What was killing them?  Were they already in a predator vs. prey relationship?  Then why were they not trying to kill/eat Adam?  Or were they dying of disease?  Again, why would it affect them but not the people?  Old age?  Possible, I suppose; except that Adam still lived another 900 odd years after the fruit, so why were the wombats god just created last week already dying before the "Fall"?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

What reason(s) do we have to assume that Adam provided her with this information?  What reason(s) do we have to assume that god provided her with this information?

 

     Both had the opportunity.  Only god had the necessity since Adam has no obligation whatsoever to pass along this information especially considering he's alone when the command is issued.  Only one is quoted by Eve as giving the command which is god.  All this, I believe, tilts the field towards him being the one providing her with this information.

This also assumes more than what the text actually says.  We know that god spoke to Adam and Eve both when he commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply;" but, at no point in the text do we read that god reiterated his command concerning the fruit to Eve.  Nor do we read that Adam told her.  We are left with mere speculation either way.  But, given the importance of the command itself, and the ramifications/implications of disobedience, it seems to me that a truly benevolent god would have ensured that all parties involved understood the command.  We just don't see that happening.  god seems more concerned about reproduction than life-saving measures.  Which raised the question, "Why?"  Why would god command them to be fruitful and multiply (instead of again issuing a warning about the tree), unless he already had reason to believe that the deaths of Adam and Eve were imminent and that their fruitful multiplication was the only way of ensuring the survival of the species?  Pure speculation again, of course; but the text does tell us that when god had the opportunity to issue his command about the fruit to Eve in person, he instead chose to have a sex talk.

[mwc]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think you're reading much more into the story than what is actually written in the text.  However, for the sake of argument, if we concede that death was a natural occurrence with which Adam would be familiar through his own observation (a concession I'm not willing to make, mind you), then would we not also have to concede the possibility that, at some point, Adam observed an inch worm or wasp eat of the Tree of Life and not die?  After all, as you said, 

     Of course we have to read into the text.  There's only a few lines actually written with almost no details present.  One thing that's missing is a time line.  Another is how anyone got informed of anything (beyond Adam being told he was a gardener and all that in pretty much one line).  We're not told who knew what, when or how.

 

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, the animals would be free to eat of the Tree of Life as well, having never been commanded otherwise.

     I think I allowed that as a possibility (I made a number of edits before posting so I don't recall if I left it in the final version but I remember writing it at one point that both trees would be available).

 

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If we are further conceding that Adam and Eve were capable of some level of reasoning, would it not have become clear to Adam, based on his observations, that even if he ate of the Tree of Knowledge, he could simply undo the consequence of death by eating from the Tree of Life?  god seems to admit this possibility in his decision to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden.

     I certainly allowed for this and cut it out because it was too much of a tangent for what I was targeting.  But yes.  This is nearly identical to what I had written.  I had mentioned that the Tree of Life was an indication that immortality was not the default condition in the garden as it would have been a redundancy *unless* it were possible to lose that immortality.  Also, it would rule out plants as immortal (I guess unless they made mulch from the Tree of Life or something).

 

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Or, are you suggesting that the risk/benefit involved with both of the Trees was only applicable to humans?  If so, based on what we know about chemistry, absorption, metabolism, and toxicity, the only explanation as to how the Tree of Knowledge would only kill people and not orangutans would have to be magic.

     This was something that I also speculated about (which is why I removed it all since it was getting wordy and off-track).  We are talking about magic after-all.  Trees in no way, shape or form offer immortality nor do they offer Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Also, humans are considered something different from animals, all animals, so the trees could be "programmed" to work in such a way only for the humans.

 

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This leaves us also needing an explanation for why the animals would die in the original, pre-Fall Eden, but not the humans.  What was killing them?  Were they already in a predator vs. prey relationship?  Then why were they not trying to kill/eat Adam?  Or were they dying of disease?  Again, why would it affect them but not the people?  Old age?  Possible, I suppose; except that Adam still lived another 900 odd years after the fruit, so why were the wombats god just created last week already dying before the "Fall"?

     No.  The animals were vegetarian.  Some animals just have short life-spans. 

 

     Remember, we have no actual time-line here.  Without the time-line the story appears to happen instantaneously.  There's "creation", then we're in the garden, the command, Eve appears, the serpent and then the fall.  It looks like about two weeks and we're done on paper but consider the creation and naming of, I don't know, a million or so animals.  That likely takes a couple minutes even using a touch of magic.

 

     Adam, being told to tend the garden, had the responsibility to look after things.  It's literally in the command given to him: "15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."  The bold part in Hebrew works out to something along the lines of "to return it in the same condition he received it."  So he was a caretaker or guard in addition to gardener.  This would indicate he would observe the animals as well since they were a part of the garden.

 

     So we make assumptions that the time-frame here is short even though there are things that happen that would take fairly long periods of time (the creation and naming of all animals).  We assume that animals are of the same class as humans even though the text has already stated they are not (mankind is god's image and are to rule the animals).  Animals could readily die from any number of things.  Old age.  Death in child-birth.  Accidents.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This also assumes more than what the text actually says.  We know that god spoke to Adam and Eve both when he commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply;" but, at no point in the text do we read that god reiterated his command concerning the fruit to Eve.  Nor do we read that Adam told her.  We are left with mere speculation either way. 

     This is true of most of this story.  We have to speculate.  It's up to us how to perceive these amoral humans.

 

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But, given the importance of the command itself, and the ramifications/implications of disobedience, it seems to me that a truly benevolent god would have ensured that all parties involved understood the command.  We just don't see that happening.  god seems more concerned about reproduction than life-saving measures.  Which raised the question, "Why?"  Why would god command them to be fruitful and multiply (instead of again issuing a warning about the tree), unless he already had reason to believe that the deaths of Adam and Eve were imminent and that their fruitful multiplication was the only way of ensuring the survival of the species?  Pure speculation again, of course; but the text does tell us that when god had the opportunity to issue his command about the fruit to Eve in person, he instead chose to have a sex talk.

     After Eve is created god brings her to Adam and we're given the "flesh of my flesh" speech (and the author speaks on marriage).  God says nothing.  We then transition immediately to the serpent.  The amount of time all this takes is unknown to us.  It could take the amount of time it takes to read, so a few seconds, or this may have taken a lot longer.

 

     Since it seems we accept Adam and Eve as amoral would it make any difference to the command if god would have simply said "Don't eat from that tree."  Nothing more.  No consequences?  Because it seems that we're to assume that Adam and Eve were unable to conceive of consequences?  Does amorality cause that?  Or is it because we're making the assumption that they could not have progressed mentally and we're assuming they were created with the mind of a child and not the mind of something else with a more advanced level of comprehension?

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

According to scripture it is impossible for god to lie or to make a mistake. 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, mwc said:

 As you state above god to lie or make a mistake

 

          mwc

This is another concession I am not willing to make.  Granted, the scripture does say god cannot lie.  However, in giving the warning about the Tree of Knowledge, god explicitly says that Adam will die the day he eats of it.  Genesis chapter 1 tells us that a "day" consisted of a morning and and evening.  Genesis chapter 5 tells us that Adam lived 930 years and had children (who must have been conceived and born after the expulsion from the Garden, as no mention of them is made before).  This means that god intentionally misled Adam--deceived him into thinking he would die somewhere between the morning and the evening of him eating the fruit.  "Spiritual" death is not in the text at all; and, given that we're not even sure Adam would have understood physical death, there is no reason to believe he would have understood spiritual death.  St. Paul claims that a day is like a thousand years with god, so the fact that Adam died at 930 years old is still in keeping with a "day".  Unfortunately, Genesis chapter 1 gives the lie to this apologetic; because ever how long a "day" might be with god, Adam was given to understand that a "day" was a morning and an evening.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, mwc said:

After Eve is created god brings her to Adam and we're given the "flesh of my flesh" speech (and the author speaks on marriage).  God says nothing.  We then transition immediately to the serpent.

You're right.  He doesn't give the sex talk until after the "Fall".  I withdraw my argument.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

46 minutes ago, mwc said:

Animals could readily die from any number of things.  Old age.  Death in child-birth.  Accidents.

This would mean that god looked down on all that he had made, including death, and declared that it was "very good."  How could Adam have perceived death as a threat, if it was something god described as "very good"?

[mwc]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

This is another concession I am not willing to make.  Granted, the scripture does say god cannot lie.  However, in giving the warning about the Tree of Knowledge, god explicitly says that Adam will die the day he eats of it.  Genesis chapter 1 tells us that a "day" consisted of a morning and and evening.  Genesis chapter 5 tells us that Adam lived 930 years and had children (who must have been conceived and born after the expulsion from the Garden, as no mention of them is made before).  This means that god intentionally misled Adam--deceived him into thinking he would die somewhere between the morning and the evening of him eating the fruit.  "Spiritual" death is not in the text at all; and, given that we're not even sure Adam would have understood physical death, there is no reason to believe he would have understood spiritual death.  St. Paul claims that a day is like a thousand years with god, so the fact that Adam died at 930 years old is still in keeping with a "day".  Unfortunately, Genesis chapter 1 gives the lie to this apologetic; because ever how long a "day" might be with god, Adam was given to understand that a "day" was a morning and an evening.

     I don't buy that spiritual death business either.

 

     I suppose one way it could work is if we accept spirit in a different fashion than it is usually argued.  In that case it would be synonymous with physical death.

 

     ⁷ Then the Lord God formed a man^[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

     So is the "breath of life" the spirit of god?  It is the animating agent.  So if that is to then leave a person that person ceases to be animated or dies.  This was, and for some folks, still is seen to be the way people "really" work.

 

     However, this is not very satisfying.  It flies in the face of the immediacy that the command seems to indicate.  It also seems to go against the purpose of the Tree of Life.  If the Tree of Life could animate humans without the spirit of god then what are the implications?  The whole thing seems to nullify in its entirety the argument for true libertarian free will.  We require the spirit of god to exist without the Tree of Life.  If that's the case then taking from the Tree of Life would have relegated god to the trash heap as far as mere existence if concerned.  I mean could they have eaten the Tree of Life and then the Tree of Knowledge?  Can immortals be killed once immortal (in other literature the answer is possibly "yes" but we're talking here).  Lots of worms in this can.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This would mean that god looked down on all that he had made, including death, and declared that it was "very good."  How could Adam have perceived death as a threat, if it was something god described as "very good"?

     Adam wasn't there for that declaration.  That's something we know because the author passes it along to us (like many things in the narrative).  We know things that characters don't know or we know them at different times.  Here's an additional example:

 

2:9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

     We are told that the trees are pleasing to the eye and good for food a whole chapter, and who knows how much earlier in time, before Eve happens across this discovery on her own.  She seems oblivious in her own world as a result of our prior knowledge.

 

     Anyhow, from the perspective of god the life-cycle may well be "very good."  God may see death as helpful to the soil?  Or maybe he sees it as something that may be helpful to over-population?

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, mwc said:

Adam wasn't there for that declaration.

Adam was also not there for the "let there be light" declaration.  Does this mean he lived in a world of darkness?  Was the principle of light somehow not applicable because Adam did not hear the declaration?  Or, did it hold true simply because god declared it?  And would the same not hold true if god declared death to be "very good" along with everything else he had created?

 

We are given to understand that what god called "good", was good; and eating the fruit of knowledge was only "bad" because god said not to.  So, if god declared all that he had made "good" and if that already included death, old age, painful childbirth, etc. then the declaration would be equivalent to the principle.  These things would be "good" whether Adam heard god say it or not.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I would really like to see a complete original narrative of creation when it was a polytheistic religion. It just seems like there is a lot missing in this story. Whatever the full original story was. Its probably lost to time unfortunately. 

 

I'm also seeing how important revelations is to the Christian narrative. A lot of things are tied back into genesis with revelations. The serpent is turned into the devil and Satan. The tree of life comes into play again. Otherwise it is only mentioned in genesis and a few times in proverbs. In revelations 22 it talks about a river of water flowing from the tree of life. And the tree of life apparently now bares 12 manner of fruit. This isn't mentioned in genesis. Revelations brings it full circle showing that when the faithful die then they have the right to the tree of life. 

 

Could it be that the early church knew there were a lot of holes to fill with their version of the story. And wrote the book of revelations to tie it all together into the old testament? 

 

Up to revelations in the new testament Jesus was the only way to get eternal life. Salvation and eternal life never had anything to do with the tree. But then in revelations it flips the script and implies just like it did in genesis. That everyone who makes it to heaven will be able to eat of the tree of life. Presumably giving them eternal life. Why doesn't Jesus ever mentions this? or Paul or Peter?

 

I really need to read Bart Ehrmans new book on revelation. Maybe that'll bring some "revelations" to light I've already mentioned it a few times but haven't bought it yet. 

 

DB