Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

This makes me think that when they ate from the tree that if death was passed to all men, then had they been already eating from the Tree of Life, that immortality would have already been passed.  I'm thinking that A&E had not been partaking of the Tree of Life....i.e. I have to move you from the garden before you eat of that one too.

 

If death enters through belief and action then life enters through belief and action.

 

A good try, Ed.

 

However, this passing on of immortality to succeeding generations doesn't close up the gaping hole in your argument.

 

The question isn't about immortality, the question concerns grace.

 

How do any of the people who aren't Jews, who lived and died before the Good News reached them, ever receive grace?

 

THAT is the question.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

Where does it say they were immortal?

Isn't that somewhat implied by the threat of death from eating the fruit?  If they were not immortal to begin with, how could the threat of death deter them from eating it?

 

god: "y'all can help yerselves to any of this fruit y'all want.  It's all good.  But that tree over yonder, what that there snake is resting hisself under,  don't eat it.  You'll die if you do."

 

Adam: "But imma die anyhow.  And it looks mighty tasty."

 

Eve: "YOLO, Adam!"

 

Serpent: "LOL."

 

god: "I'm finna flee on up outta here.  BRB."

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Isn't that somewhat implied by the threat of death from eating the fruit?  If they were not immortal to begin with, how could the threat of death deter them from eating it?

 

god: "y'all can help yerselves to any of this fruit y'all want.  It's all good.  But that tree over yonder, what that there snake is resting hisself under,  don't eat it.  You'll die if you do."

 

Adam: "But imma die anyhow.  And it looks mighty tasty."

 

Eve: "YOLO, Adam!"

 

Serpent: "LOL."

 

god: "I'm finna flee on up outta here.  BRB."

It never actually says they or any of the other animals are immortal. And when they did eat the fruit they didn't die naturally. 

 

Over all, biblically it is considered the death of the soul to sin that God was speaking of. 

 

But even after this it isn't until the 6th chapter of Genesis that God sets a time limit on man's actual life. 

 

I think that eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal like God would have rendered God incapable of doing that. Which is why he banishes them from the Garden and sets a sword of fire at the entrance to protect the "way of the tree of life". 

 

For Christians that way is Jesus. 

 

DB

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

It never actually says they or any of the other animals are immortal. And when they did eat the fruit they didn't die naturally. 

 

Over all, biblically it is considered the death of the soul to sin that God was speaking of. 

 

But even after this it isn't until the 6th chapter of Genesis that God sets a time limit on man's actual life. 

 

I think that eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal like God would have rendered God incapable of doing that. Which is why he banishes them from the Garden and sets a sword of fire at the entrance to protect the "way of the tree of life". 

 

For Christians that way is Jesus. 

 

DB

 

This would also fit with the reappearance of the tree in revelations when all sin has been wiped off the face of the earth and the earth is made new again.

 

At that time only the people that followed God's way are able to partake of the tree of life. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

god: "y'all can help yerselves to any of this fruit y'all want.  It's all good.  But that tree over yonder, what that there snake is resting hisself under,  don't eat it.  You'll die if you do."

 

Adam: "But imma die anyhow.  And it looks mighty tasty."

 

Eve: "YOLO, Adam!"

 

Serpent: "LOL."

 

god: "I'm finna flee on up outta here.  BRB."

thats funny!! Sounds like Eden was somewhere round Ga.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

It never actually says they or any of the other animals are immortal. And when they did eat the fruit they didn't die naturally. 

 

Over all, biblically it is considered the death of the soul to sin that God was speaking of. 

 

But even after this it isn't until the 6th chapter of Genesis that God sets a time limit on man's actual life. 

 

I think that eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal like God would have rendered God incapable of doing that. Which is why he banishes them from the Garden and sets a sword of fire at the entrance to protect the "way of the tree of life". 

 

For Christians that way is Jesus. 

 

DB

 

Goodness.  This just makes god an even bigger liar.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

48 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Goodness.  This just makes god an even bigger liar.

How does it make him anymore of a liar than we've already discussed? its already pretty bad. 

[walterpthefirst]

Edgarcito,

 

Here's something that illustrates the problem of access to god's grace via Jesus Christ.

 

When you follow the link and enlarge the world map, please note the following points.

 

1. 

Salvation by faith for the Jews was restricted almost entirely to what is modern day Israel for thousands of years.  Even though Jews travelled around the Middle East and the Mediterranean during this period, they did not share their faith with outsiders (Gentiles).  They considered themselves god's chosen people and so they did NOT share their faith.  This only changed in the years after Jesus' resurrection when the apostle Peter (the Rock upon which Jesus said he would build the church) permitted a few Gentiles to be baptised into Christ.  Before then there were NO Gentiles who were saved by grace.

 

2.

You'll notice that for a thousand years Christianity was almost totally confined to Europe,  some of Africa and some of the Middle East.  This means that people living and dying anywhere else in the world had no hope of salvation by grace through Jesus Christ.

 

3.

The white areas represent either regions of the world where there is no accurate data, where the is no human population (the centre of Greenland) or where other religions have prevented Christianity from becoming properly established.  So, even though there are Christians in India today, by far the greater majority are Hindus and Sikhs.  In a similar way, even though there will be some Christians in the north of Africa, the Middle East, China, South East Asia and Indonesia, they are heavily outnumbered by the Muslims and Buddhists who live in these regions.

 

4.

So Edgarcito, the gaping hole in your argument about the availability of grace is this question.  

 

Has god been fair and just to the billions who lived and died (i.e., most of the world for most of recorded history) before they ever had a chance to receive his grace?

 

If Yes, then how?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Like father like daughter. Looks just like me  

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

How does it make him anymore of a liar than we've already discussed? its already pretty bad. 

I think because it shows god using death as a threat when he already secretly knew Adam was going to die anyway.  If they were not intrinsically immortal, then death was inevitable.  Yet god used what was essentially a bluff in an effort to manipulate them into doing what he wanted. 

 

Maybe it's a personal thing for me; but I'd rather be flat out lied to than to find out later that I got played.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Like father like daughter. Looks just like me  

 

That's a pretty grim outlook.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

54 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's a pretty grim outlook.  

They say you reap what you sew..... 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think because it shows god using death as a threat when he already secretly knew Adam was going to die anyway.  If they were not intrinsically immortal, then death was inevitable.  Yet god used what was essentially a bluff in an effort to manipulate them into doing what he wanted. 

 

Maybe it's a personal thing for me; but I'd rather be flat out lied to than to find out later that I got played.

 

Good point, I guess that does make it worse. 

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think because it shows god using death as a threat when he already secretly knew Adam was going to die anyway.  If they were not intrinsically immortal, then death was inevitable.  Yet god used what was essentially a bluff in an effort to manipulate them into doing what he wanted. 

 

Maybe it's a personal thing for me; but I'd rather be flat out lied to than to find out later that I got played.

 

Consider considering that you are considering rather poorly written literature instead of a story you choose to pretend is accurate.  Granted, playing devil's advocate has many positive features, but it is not the only meaningful perspective from which things can be discussed.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good to see you again, @sdelsolray.

[mwc]

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Gonna re-up this one. Because it was your thoughts on the garden @mwc that made me start thinking about this. 

 

Could it have been considered good because of the absence of the knowledge of right and wrong? Maybe thats the key. And maybe there is just more to the story that was taken away through the course of time. 

     I don't know if I am reading you correctly here but I'll give a quick thought and find out.  What I'm thinking, after reading this bit, is that some of what we're having problems with the meaning of good in more than one way?  We have Adam and Eve not knowing good and evil but at the same time we have a problem of us not really knowing either in that we can't really tell what is supposed to be a good in the moral sense and what is not.  When Eve says the food is good for eating we assume she can't mean morally good so she must mean good in another sense.  When god is said to declare something good is it good in any and all ways or simply in a more narrow sense?  The both senses can allow a paradise but the more narrow sense removes the idea of moral perfection and allows more for a perfect construction in a neutral sense.

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I don't think initially they were created immortal. I think they were just created like all the other animals. God had not set a time line yet for their lives. That doesn't happen until chapter six. And when he does it. It isn't a direct result of Adam and eves actions. He just says his spirit will not always strive with man. So he limits man's age. This was probably added to explain to people why people don't live 900 years anymore. Not that people ever actually lived that long. But after hearing the stories about Adam's life and especially Methuselas life. That had to be a question on the believers mind. Which would have been addressed somehow. 

 

Genesis 6:3

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.

     The idea is echoed with Gilgamesh.  Gilgamesh is in need of an equal.  So Enkidu is created.  He's rather feral.  Gilgamesh hears of this man and devises a plan to have him brought to him. A prostitute is brought to the wilderness and they have sex.  Once done he's rejected by the animals so he goes to civilization to meet Gilgamesh.

 

Anu granted him the totality of knowledge of all.
He saw the Secret, discovered the Hidden,
he brought information of (the time) before the Flood.

...

Take and read out from the lapis lazuli tablet
how Gilgamesh went through every hardship.

...

Whose name, from the day of his birth, was called "Gilgamesh"?
Two-thirds of him is god, one-third of him is human.

...

and (the gods) called out to Aruru:
"it was you, Aruru, who created mankind(?),
now create a zikru to it/him.
Let him be equal to his (Gilgamesh's) stormy heart,
let them be a match for each other so that Uruk may find peace!"
When Aruru heard this she created within herself the zikrtt of Anu.
Aruru washed her hands, she pinched off some clay, and threw it into the wilderness.
In the wildness(?) she created valiant Enkidu,
born of Silence, endowed with strength by Ninurta.
His whole body was shaggy with hair,
he had a full head of hair like a woman,
his locks billowed in profusion like Ashnan.
He knew neither people nor settled living,
but wore a garment like Sumukan."
He ate grasses with the gazelles,
and jostled at the watering hole with the animals;
as with animals, his thirst was slaked with (mere) water.

...

Gilgamesh said to the trapper:
"Go, trapper, bring the harlot, Shamhat, with you.
When the animals are drinking at the watering place
have her take off her robe and expose her sex.
When he sees her he will draw near to her,
and his animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will be alien to him."

...

Shamhat unclutched her bosom, exposed her sex, and he took in her voluptuousness.
She was not restrained, but took his energy.
She spread out her robe and he lay upon her,
she performed for the primitive the task of womankind.
His lust groaned over her;
for six days and seven nights Enkidu stayed aroused,
and had intercourse with the harlot
until he was sated with her charms.
But when he turned his attention to his animals,
the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off,
the wild animals distanced themselves from his body.

...

Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as before.
But then he drew himself up, for his understanding had broadened.
Turning around, he sat down at the harlot's feet,
gazing into her face, his ears attentive as the harlot spoke.
The harlot said to Enkidu:
"You are beautiful," Enkidu, you are become like a god.
Why do you gallop around the wilderness with the wild beasts?

...

"Come, let us go, so he may see your face.
I will lead you to Gilgamesh--I know where he will be.
Look about, Enkidu, inside Uruk-Haven,
where the people show off in skirted finery,
where every day is a day for some festival,
where the lyre(?) and drum play continually,
where harlots stand about prettily,
exuding voluptuousness, full of laughter
and on the couch of night the sheets are spread (!)."
Enkidu, you who do not know, how to live,
I will show you Gilgamesh, a man of extreme feelings (!).
Look at him, gaze at his face--
he is a handsome youth, with freshness(!),
his entire body exudes voluptuousness
He has mightier strength than you,
without sleeping day or night!
Enkidu, it is your wrong thoughts you must change!
It is Gilgamesh whom Shamhat loves,
and Anu, Enlil, and La have enlarged his mind."
Even before you came from the mountain
Gilgamesh in Uruk had dreams about you.""

 

     So Enkidu loses his paradise thanks to a woman and the carnal knowledge he now possesses.  This would run a counter-point for a civilization that lived in the city as opposed to one that is rural (which is more reflected in Genesis).

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

But it does seem that in both the old and new testament the tree of life is the key to immortality. Not God or Jesus but the tree. God and Jesus only grant access to the tree of life. And once both the fruits have been eaten you really do become like God. 

 

This creates another fallacy. That takes some of gods power away and gives it to the tree. 

 

The tree should have a story all of its own honestly. It is a very key piece to the puzzle. 

     Yeah, god is diminished by the tree (both).  I guess the only thing that god might keep to himself is power?  There doesn't seem to be a way for humans to obtain that.  I guess god could magically use his power to give knowledge and immortality but it seems odd that there were (are? will be?) alternative ways to get them and or/keep them seems to displace some of that power.

 

     It also raises a couple of issues.  Does god place the power into these objects or, less likely, does god derive his power from these objects?  We're told god is the source but then why does god offload into objects like trees?  Trees do supply food for life so a perfect tree might be imagined to supply perfect food that supplies perfect things.  So instead of short bursts of life it provides eternal life.  And if a tree is imagined to supply knowledge then a perfect tree could supply all-knowledge.  And so on (healing, potency, etc.).  The next issue would be if people need this, over and over, like food to maintain themselves in these areas, then they're still beholden to god and never truly free.

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Like I said before. The story feels incomplete. We know that through the years they hacked up the teachings and changed them. And before that they were passed down through oral tradition. This story has the feel of being hacked up, changed, and pieced back together to support a different ideology. 

 

It obviously had polytheistic thought in it because of the plural language used by God. God is obviously talking to someone else. We are lead to believe by Christian thought that it was Jesus. But originally it wasn't. That is purely a Christian notion. So if we take that out of the equation then who was it. I'm thinking it was probably El talking to his wife Asherah. 

     The sources appear to be from Mesopotamia.  The Canaanite stories that still exist don't really seem to reflect what is present here (based on what evidence exists).  If you look over the snippets I posted above you can see just a hint of the polytheism in the story (I didn't really leave all the god talk but you can see a little in the bit around the creation of Enkidu).  I made the quick mention of city versus rural earlier.  The two stories seem to hold opposing views.  Genesis tends towards a rustic ideal while the other tends towards a civilized ideal.

 

     Other clues include things like the following (biblicalarchaeology.org

Quote

The name Eve is actually pronounced ḥawwa in Hebrew. Genesis 3:20 puns that the name means “mother of all the living,” although the direct derivation of this definition from the Hebrew is difficult to find. However, Eve’s name may have a possible ancient Sumerian antecedent. The name of the Sumerian goddess of healing, Ninti, can mean “lady of life” or “lady of the rib” because the Sumerian word ti means both “life” and “rib.” In one Sumerian myth, it was Ninti’s role to heal the accursed deity Enki’s rib, which returned him to life.

 

It is possible that this Sumerian myth inspired a bilingual play on words in Genesis 3:20. Eve, which the Hebrew text calls life-giving “mother of all the living,” was formed from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21), and not from some other, perhaps seemingly more appropriate, body part.^a So while the Hebrew does not convey the pun, the Hebrew scribes, who were very learned and likely knew the Sumerian myth, understood the pun and may have retained a modified version of it, although it is doubtful if the average Israelite would have gotten the pun.

 

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Then the language about the serpent and the curse the serpent suffered. Again in Christian thought thats the devil. But really it sound just like they are talking about a snake and why it crawls on its belly. I do believe that that is all the serpent was originally meant to be. Just a snake like in Ed's Texas garden, but back then it had legs. In this specific ancient culture snakes were probably common. And if given a human personality would be thought of as sneaky because you couldn't hear them move. So it makes sense that they would choose a snake while building a myth like this to be the antagonist. 

     From the paper "Wordplay In Genesis 2:25-3:1" by Zvi Ron (Jewish Bible Quarterly link)
 

Quote

 

Both of these examples are noted by Ibn Ezra in his discussion of Genesis 2:25-3:1. There we read that Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden, And they were both naked (arummim), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Immediately after that we are told, Now the serpent was more cunning (arum) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made (Gen. 3:1). Ibn Ezra notes that in one verse the term arum is used to mean "naked" and in the next verse the same basic root denotes "cunning" or "subtle." He explains: "Do not be astonished that arum is used right after arummim, having two different meanings, for this is the way of eloquence (tzahut lashon)." He then cites Judges 15:16 and 10:4 as examples of this style. Modern Bible scholars also take this to be an example of wordplay. Cassuto notes that the word for "naked" is generally vowelized to read eirom throughout Genesis (3:7, 3:10, 3:11), and only in 2:25 is it vowelized arum, in order to make the similarity between arummim (naked) in 2:25 and arum (cunning) in 3:1 more blatant.1 Robert Alter explains that this is "the kind of pun in which the ancient Hebrew writers delighted."2

...

Even though it is generally understood that the Hebrew words for "naked" and "cunning" are based on different roots, they clearly have a strong similarity, bordering on homophony. There may be a semantic connection between these two terms.4 Leon Kass affirms that "the root sense of erum, 'naked,' is 'smooth': someone who is naked is hairless, clothesless, smooth of skin. But as the pun suggests, someone who is clever is also smooth, a facile thinker and talker whose surface speech is beguiling and flawless, hiding well his rough ulterior purposes."5

 

Ibn Ezra does not indicate what the purpose of this wordplay is, and seems to imply that it has no purpose apart from being a nice turn of phrase. Some modern Bible scholars, particularly religious Christians, have tried to find some meaning behind this wordplay. It has been suggested that the function of the wordplay is to establish a connection between the two verses, teaching that nakedness causes temptation;6 to emphasize that Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness because of the serpent's cunning;7 or to indicate that because Adam and Eve were naked, innocent and oblivious of evil, the serpent was able to use his cunning to mislead them.8 None of these lessons are particularly profound, and it may well be that the primary motivation for using similar sounding words for both "naked" and "cunning" was to fashion an interesting and pleasant narrative, with the possibility of some additional message or lesson as a welcome side effect.9 However, many contemporary Bible scholars explain that the wordplay serves a purely narrative function, providing a transition and linkage between the story of the creation of Adam and Eve and the episode of the serpent.10 This linkage is important, since often in the Bible the introduction of a new character by means of a circumstantial clause, as is done here with the serpent, marks the beginning of a new episode. 11

 

Translations of the Bible, from Onkelos, the Septuagint and the Vulgate12 down to modern English translations,13 generally ignore this wordplay. ...

 

     So, as you surmise, it may well have just been a serpent who was introduced as a transitional device for the narrative.  The humans needed to change state and this new character allowed it to happen.  And it's a convenient character due to its perceived nature.

 

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

This was something else I mentioned earlier before ed tried to drag us back into the "God has a higher purpose and logic" train again. I'm glad we are back off of that again now. 

 

God really does seem like a liar here. Or atleast this story is to indicate his jealous nature. We know in the old testament God is a jealous God. It says it word for word. 

 

Deuteronomy 6

12 Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;

15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers.

19 To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the Lord hath spoken.

20 And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you?

21 Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:

22 And the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:

23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.

24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

This particular ideology doesn't really appear word for word until after the narrative of Moses and the Egyptian exile. I'm speculating that El in polytheistic origins may have had a jealous side. And that was built upon later.

 

https://reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

 

In this article they are discussing the lack of evidence found to support an actual exodus from Egypt. It is a very interesting read and also talks about the four different known sources that influenced the old testament. This Jewish professor believes that a small sect of levites brought all of that in during the preistly additions to the Bible. 

 

(I want to go on a rabbit trail now but I'm gonna try to reel in my ADD for now )

 

Anyway, so we have a jealous God in genesis that gets upset that his children were disobedient. This fits with the narrative in the story of Moses later. Also Moses brings in the sacrifice for sins as a commandment and law. It would make sense that this same preistly source went back and tweaked the genesis account of creation to reflect the additions they were going to make later. Or they retrofitted the creation account after they added the story of the exodus. Either way. They would have made their changes. 

 

I posted a lot of content with that deuteronomy scripture for a reason. I highlighted the scripture about God being Jealous but look right after that. 

 

(17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers.)

 

Doesn't this look like the lesson that is being taught in genesis here? Adam and Eve were given a command not to eat of the fruit.

 

As MWC said and the creation account reflects. 

     Yeah, the whole idea is when this story was put together exactly what did the author(s) know and from where was it drawn?  There seems to be clear signs, especially in the flood narrative, where all the later knowledge of sacrificial animals, comes through (with the bringing of two animals each and then the second telling to bring seven of the clean animals).

 

     So did these folks draw from Genesis for their ideas or did they retroactively insert their ideas into Genesis?  Maybe a little of both?  They seemed to get their hands on lots of books and tinker around after the return from Babylon so I wouldn't be surprised with a lot of cross-pollination.

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I can't really go along with your thought about Adam wasting away. Because there were other trees he could eat from and was encouraged to eat from. So they still had food for fuel. 

     Maybe I wasn't clear in my little pondering there?  I was wondering that if food, any and all food, wasn't actually for nutrition/fuel, as it is today, then would Adam simply start to waste away?  Like a zombie?  If they don't eat they still function but seem to just waste away (depending on the version you're dealing with).  Or would he just be magically preserved at some optimum level?  No need for sleep.  No need to rest.  No need to eat.  He could do these things but not for the reasons we do them.  He could eat but just for the different flavors and textures (and maybe to feel the chewing and swallowing but not expelling since we assume no waste).  Rest would be because he could choose to not because he had to after working the garden.  And sleep seems totally unnecessary. 

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

God did say everything he created was "very good" to include that specific tree. But still commands the man not to eat it. 

 

Then man sees reason in the snakes argument. The author doesn't care that Adam and Eve have no concept of good vs evil. It doesn't matter that the snake doesn't lie. It seems here that God lied. But in ancient times that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Gods had human flaws in Greek mythology. 

 

Here read this article about Medusa. Is this fair? Hell no its not! But this is the type of story we have in genesis.

 

https://educationispowerful.net/myth-of-medusa/#:~:text=She does nothing wrong%2C and,be equal to the gods.

 

(Edit: I forgot to add this link earlier)

 

God commanded them not to eat of it for his own jealous and vain purposes. which the snake apparently knows about somehow. He relays that to the humans. They see that he isn't lying. They eat and their eyes are opened. God finds out. Gets jealous. And all hell breaks loose. He is God and they should have obeyed him no matter what. That is the lesson. And it is also the lesson later on in exodus. God opens up the ground and swallows many of them up because of their disobedience and his jealousy. He makes them wander the desert for 40 years because of his jealousy. 

 

I wonder if originally the snake had a bigger roll. Like he crawled in a tree and listened to El speaking to his son Ba'al or Yahweh about why he forbade the humans to eat of the tree. I feel like there should be more emphasis on why the knowledge of good and evil was perceived as a godly knowledge. Like I said. It is like we took that story of Medusa and left out all the pertinent details. I honestly feel like there is missing content that was just hacked out of the storyline by the various sources. E,D,P,&J

 

That is what happened tho. So yeah. And that is why we are discussing this. All of these fallacies that we are seeing are a result of a storyline that was hacked to bits and restructured possibly 4 times or more to reflect changes in ideology. There is a lot lost here that will probably never be seen again. 

 

Its to bad really. I bet the original version was an interesting read. 

     Yeah, compared to a number of the stories it seems rather sparse.  What was there and what was left on the cutting-room floor is something to wonder about with a bit of frustration.  It seems a lot of religion is built on such a small foundation.

 

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

(Rabbit trail warning)

Also I noticed something that I think is also key to indoctrination in the deuteronomy 6 scripture i posted. The basic theme is repeated in the new testament for "proof" as well. 

 

21 Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:

22 And the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:

23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.

24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

I see a lot of parallels here. In the new testament they talk about all these miracles that are done. Jesus feeding the 5000, Jesus making the blind to see, Jesus making the lame to walk, Jesus being resurrected and ascending to heaven on a cloud supposedly seen by 500 people, and then all the miracles of the apostles. 

 

All of that considered to be "proof" but none of it can be verified. Just like none of the story of Moses can be verified through archeological excavations. This "proof" is only located in one place in both instances. The Bible. Outside of the Bible nothing agrees with the story line. None of these things can be verified to have happened. Also non of it can be repeated. And everything that we can actually find doesn't tell the same story. Also none of the claims can be repeated. Like the miracles that Christians are supposed to be able to perform. Or the promises that God made.

 

So they controlled the minds of the illiterate masses that may have been curious why they should live this way. Why they should follow these rules. Well because God will punish you, he's a jealous God and these people saw it. Be afraid be very afraid and do as we say.   I can laugh at it now because I can see it for what it is. Its the same in the new testament. Do what we say because all these people saw it happen. See its written so it must be true. 

 

I would think that as uncommon as literacy was in these ancient times that anything written and heralded as fact was probably very seldom questioned. These were the "smart" people of their time. People to be listened to and explain why the world was the way it was. 

 

And now the religious mock the smart people of our time. clinging to the ideals of a mostly illiterate culture with an ancient concept of reality. I can't laugh at that part. That part is just fucking sad. 

     Yeah, this could be the case.  I'm not sure people have to be illiterate though.  Lots of fully literate people, of all education levels, believe in magic and miracles today.  I don't want to discount all these people as maybe being simpletons because they lived a long time ago.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

20 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Imo, the entity humanity did not enjoy the same privileges while in the garden.....they were not like "us".  They were immortal without the knowledge.  There is immortality with the knowledge and without the knowledge.  Once the ate, they were then not allowed to stay likely because they God didn't want them basically for their lack of being able to handle the knowledge and immortality together.   So now we have the process of working towards those that display the ability or desire.  "What are you going to do even if you understand son?  Sacrifice, faith, and Grace" Until God then changes them to be "like us" on that day.  

 

Edit:  And the culmination...once changed, belonging to the group "with the knowledge and immortal" we are "free indeed",  "indeed" being the operative word here...not only our faith in Christ but our actions that moved us over, demonstrated our heart.  Eve ate, Jesus did what he did.  Our actions must demonstrate actual participation...

     So, if I read this correctly, god noticed that they had both immortality and knowledge?  God then determined this created a crisis situation?  God responded by making various curses and cuts off contact with them in order to make their lives even more difficult?  

 

     That's an answer I suppose.

 

     It's essentially the stock answer though.  We all kind of know this version.  Is there another way we might look at it?  Or maybe some deeper dive into some of these details like the why behind the reason those two things were incompatible?  People have speculated of what sort of tree it was after all.  Why not take a shot?

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

How about this, mwc?

 

We know that god forbade Adam from eating from ONLY one of the two supernatural trees in Eden – the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  So, the Tree of Life was not off-limits.  We also know that ALL of the trees in Eden were pleasing to the eye and good for food.  Adam and Eve discovered that the forbidden tree was like this, thanks to the serpent. 

 

If we then look at Revelation 22, where the New Jerusalem is the full restoration of what was lost in Eden, what do we see?  The Tree of Life bears fruit twelve times a year, each month.  (Verse 2) Therefore, I submit the following scenario might have prevailed in Eden.

 

Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the natural trees of the garden to sustain their bodies on a daily basis.  But every month, when the fruit of the Tree of Life ripened, they ate that supernatural fruit to remain ageless.  So, their immortality was tied to the fruit of the Tree of Life.  Unlike god, who is truly immortal, eternal and ageless.

 

A further line of evidence for this scenario might be the declining ages of the patriarchs.  Adam lived to be 930.  But after the Flood the age of the patriarchs in the line of Shem and Abram had decreased to about 100 or 200 years.  This could be due to the waning influence of the life-giving Tree from generation to generation.

 

I submit that this scenario might explain the why’s and wherefores of what Adam and Eve ate in Eden.

     This is a nice speculation.

 

     You should also like it because it places everyone on the hook for all eternity.  They must stay on god's good side if they wish to live forever.  One misstep and you fade into mortality and death.  How evil compared to making one truly immortal.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

19 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

This makes me think that when they ate from the tree that if death was passed to all men, then had they been already eating from the Tree of Life, that immortality would have already been passed.  I'm thinking that A&E had not been partaking of the Tree of Life....i.e. I have to move you from the garden before you eat of that one too.

 

If death enters through belief and action then life enters through belief and action.

     This assumes that any traits that were within the trees somehow not only modifies the person but their offspring as well.

 

     Did Cain and Abel innately have the same knowledge as Adam and Eve or was that knowledge something they were able to pass along through education?  In this same way would immortality, obtained via the tree, have been limited to only Adam and Eve and not their offspring?

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

     This assumes that any traits that were within the trees somehow not only modifies the person but their offspring as well.

 

     Did Cain and Abel innately have the same knowledge as Adam and Eve or was that knowledge something they were able to pass along through education?  In this same way would immortality, obtained via the tree, have been limited to only Adam and Eve and not their offspring?

 

          mwc

 

 

It seems to me like the knowledge of good and evil passes to all man through Adam. And its this knowledge that makes us accountable for sin. It explains a person's conscience. Why do we feel bad when we do something wrong? Adam and Eve were naked without any worry. But once they ate of the fruit they were ashamed and covered themselves. 

 

Its a myth. Thats all it is. In reality if a child were raised without being taught rules and right and wrong by their elders. Then they probably wouldn't have the exact same conscience as most people. Or if they were taught a different version of right and wrong. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

     This assumes that any traits that were within the trees somehow not only modifies the person but their offspring as well.

 

     Did Cain and Abel innately have the same knowledge as Adam and Eve or was that knowledge something they were able to pass along through education?  In this same way would immortality, obtained via the tree, have been limited to only Adam and Eve and not their offspring?

 

          mwc

 

I think it's both.  Epigenetic research, or at least what I am understanding to date, suggests that genetics are changed temporarily, maybe a few generations per the actions of a parent.  I am no expert, it's just what I had understood.  I would suspect education also moves the needle.    My personal conclusion suggests immortality still has a chance within those in the death group but would be few and far between given our propensity to sin.  And which begs the question, what happens when you compound sin over generations...

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And which begs the question, what happens when you compound sin over generations...

What are you trying to say here? Like generational sin in the old testament? Or something different?

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

What are you trying to say here? Like generational sin in the old testament? Or something different?

Genetic change over generations due to the behaviors of the parents.  Could be translated to generational sin imo.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, mwc said:

     I don't know if I am reading you correctly here but I'll give a quick thought and find out.  What I'm thinking, after reading this bit, is that some of what we're having problems with the meaning of good in more than one way?  We have Adam and Eve not knowing good and evil but at the same time we have a problem of us not really knowing either in that we can't really tell what is supposed to be a good in the moral sense and what is not.  When Eve says the food is good for eating we assume she can't mean morally good so she must mean good in another sense.  When god is said to declare something good is it good in any and all ways or simply in a more narrow sense?  The both senses can allow a paradise but the more narrow sense removes the idea of moral perfection and allows more for a perfect construction in a neutral sense.

 

     The idea is echoed with Gilgamesh.  Gilgamesh is in need of an equal.  So Enkidu is created.  He's rather feral.  Gilgamesh hears of this man and devises a plan to have him brought to him. A prostitute is brought to the wilderness and they have sex.  Once done he's rejected by the animals so he goes to civilization to meet Gilgamesh.

 

Anu granted him the totality of knowledge of all.
He saw the Secret, discovered the Hidden,
he brought information of (the time) before the Flood.

...

Take and read out from the lapis lazuli tablet
how Gilgamesh went through every hardship.

...

Whose name, from the day of his birth, was called "Gilgamesh"?
Two-thirds of him is god, one-third of him is human.

...

and (the gods) called out to Aruru:
"it was you, Aruru, who created mankind(?),
now create a zikru to it/him.
Let him be equal to his (Gilgamesh's) stormy heart,
let them be a match for each other so that Uruk may find peace!"
When Aruru heard this she created within herself the zikrtt of Anu.
Aruru washed her hands, she pinched off some clay, and threw it into the wilderness.
In the wildness(?) she created valiant Enkidu,
born of Silence, endowed with strength by Ninurta.
His whole body was shaggy with hair,
he had a full head of hair like a woman,
his locks billowed in profusion like Ashnan.
He knew neither people nor settled living,
but wore a garment like Sumukan."
He ate grasses with the gazelles,
and jostled at the watering hole with the animals;
as with animals, his thirst was slaked with (mere) water.

...

Gilgamesh said to the trapper:
"Go, trapper, bring the harlot, Shamhat, with you.
When the animals are drinking at the watering place
have her take off her robe and expose her sex.
When he sees her he will draw near to her,
and his animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will be alien to him."

...

Shamhat unclutched her bosom, exposed her sex, and he took in her voluptuousness.
She was not restrained, but took his energy.
She spread out her robe and he lay upon her,
she performed for the primitive the task of womankind.
His lust groaned over her;
for six days and seven nights Enkidu stayed aroused,
and had intercourse with the harlot
until he was sated with her charms.
But when he turned his attention to his animals,
the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off,
the wild animals distanced themselves from his body.

...

Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as before.
But then he drew himself up, for his understanding had broadened.
Turning around, he sat down at the harlot's feet,
gazing into her face, his ears attentive as the harlot spoke.
The harlot said to Enkidu:
"You are beautiful," Enkidu, you are become like a god.
Why do you gallop around the wilderness with the wild beasts?

...

"Come, let us go, so he may see your face.
I will lead you to Gilgamesh--I know where he will be.
Look about, Enkidu, inside Uruk-Haven,
where the people show off in skirted finery,
where every day is a day for some festival,
where the lyre(?) and drum play continually,
where harlots stand about prettily,
exuding voluptuousness, full of laughter
and on the couch of night the sheets are spread (!)."
Enkidu, you who do not know, how to live,
I will show you Gilgamesh, a man of extreme feelings (!).
Look at him, gaze at his face--
he is a handsome youth, with freshness(!),
his entire body exudes voluptuousness
He has mightier strength than you,
without sleeping day or night!
Enkidu, it is your wrong thoughts you must change!
It is Gilgamesh whom Shamhat loves,
and Anu, Enlil, and La have enlarged his mind."
Even before you came from the mountain
Gilgamesh in Uruk had dreams about you.""

 

     So Enkidu loses his paradise thanks to a woman and the carnal knowledge he now possesses.  This would run a counter-point for a civilization that lived in the city as opposed to one that is rural (which is more reflected in Genesis).

 

     Yeah, god is diminished by the tree (both).  I guess the only thing that god might keep to himself is power?  There doesn't seem to be a way for humans to obtain that.  I guess god could magically use his power to give knowledge and immortality but it seems odd that there were (are? will be?) alternative ways to get them and or/keep them seems to displace some of that power.

 

     It also raises a couple of issues.  Does god place the power into these objects or, less likely, does god derive his power from these objects?  We're told god is the source but then why does god offload into objects like trees?  Trees do supply food for life so a perfect tree might be imagined to supply perfect food that supplies perfect things.  So instead of short bursts of life it provides eternal life.  And if a tree is imagined to supply knowledge then a perfect tree could supply all-knowledge.  And so on (healing, potency, etc.).  The next issue would be if people need this, over and over, like food to maintain themselves in these areas, then they're still beholden to god and never truly free.

 

     The sources appear to be from Mesopotamia.  The Canaanite stories that still exist don't really seem to reflect what is present here (based on what evidence exists).  If you look over the snippets I posted above you can see just a hint of the polytheism in the story (I didn't really leave all the god talk but you can see a little in the bit around the creation of Enkidu).  I made the quick mention of city versus rural earlier.  The two stories seem to hold opposing views.  Genesis tends towards a rustic ideal while the other tends towards a civilized ideal.

 

     Other clues include things like the following (biblicalarchaeology.org

 

 

     From the paper "Wordplay In Genesis 2:25-3:1" by Zvi Ron (Jewish Bible Quarterly link)
 

     So, as you surmise, it may well have just been a serpent who was introduced as a transitional device for the narrative.  The humans needed to change state and this new character allowed it to happen.  And it's a convenient character due to its perceived nature.

 

 

     Yeah, the whole idea is when this story was put together exactly what did the author(s) know and from where was it drawn?  There seems to be clear signs, especially in the flood narrative, where all the later knowledge of sacrificial animals, comes through (with the bringing of two animals each and then the second telling to bring seven of the clean animals).

 

     So did these folks draw from Genesis for their ideas or did they retroactively insert their ideas into Genesis?  Maybe a little of both?  They seemed to get their hands on lots of books and tinker around after the return from Babylon so I wouldn't be surprised with a lot of cross-pollination.

 

     Maybe I wasn't clear in my little pondering there?  I was wondering that if food, any and all food, wasn't actually for nutrition/fuel, as it is today, then would Adam simply start to waste away?  Like a zombie?  If they don't eat they still function but seem to just waste away (depending on the version you're dealing with).  Or would he just be magically preserved at some optimum level?  No need for sleep.  No need to rest.  No need to eat.  He could do these things but not for the reasons we do them.  He could eat but just for the different flavors and textures (and maybe to feel the chewing and swallowing but not expelling since we assume no waste).  Rest would be because he could choose to not because he had to after working the garden.  And sleep seems totally unnecessary. 

 

     Yeah, compared to a number of the stories it seems rather sparse.  What was there and what was left on the cutting-room floor is something to wonder about with a bit of frustration.  It seems a lot of religion is built on such a small foundation.

 

     Yeah, this could be the case.  I'm not sure people have to be illiterate though.  Lots of fully literate people, of all education levels, believe in magic and miracles today.  I don't want to discount all these people as maybe being simpletons because they lived a long time ago.

 

          mwc

 

I'm going to reply to this MWC but I'm wanting to look more into the ancient canaanite beliefs before I do. I found a few interesting reads that might explain why the ancient Isrealites wrote their myth the way they did. I do think myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's odyssey and Ancient Egyptian beliefs directly influenced Isreal's beliefs. When I first deconverted I was looking a lot into the story of Moses. And I read one article that dated the occurrence of their monothiestic beliefs somewhere between the 12th and 15th centuries BCE. Then later read about the Pharoah Akhenaten who changed Egyptian beliefs temporarily to a monotheistic religion worshiping on RA in the 13th century BCE. I don't think that's a coincidence. 

 

Also this weekend is filled with Halloween events that we are taking our daughter and her best friend to. So I'm limited on time. 

 

Thanks, 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Genetic change over generations due to the behaviors of the parents.  Could be translated to generational sin imo.

 

I don't see how thats biblical. Generational sin didn't make it into the new testament. Well other than the normal sin caused by Adam's fall.

 

But do some research on that. Generational sin would be a good topic to have its own thread on.