Religion divides.
We aren’t even off the first page and already there is a difference of interpretation.
Difference of opinion makes horse races, and sects.
Exactly - well put.
My point was that the story of the Fall makes God look downright perverse. Why create a being with freewill, curiosity etc and then get huffy when it uses the capacities you have built into it?
Mind you, I think the Adam and Eve story is a great metaphor for the human condition because it encapsulates the idea that once you know something, you can’t go back to a state of innocence. What’s the one thing we know that no other living thing does? That we are going to die. It’s the same with scientific discoveries - we’ve split the atom, the knowledge cannot be erased. We’ve cloned sheep, so sooner or later…you know the rest
I was raised in the Methodist church, but generally consider myself ignorant of biblical interpretations.
Genesis seems to be one of the more accessible books, but it still confuses me. I clearly don’t try to understand it literally, but am willing to look at it as allegory. And I still can’t make sense of it.
I have no intention of hijacking this thread, but I have some questions, and I think most are relevent here. Anyone willing to help me with them?
First, in Genesis 1:26, who does “us” and “our” refer to? Here is the text I am looking at:
And why “them”? At this point, it is not at all clear that he intended for there to be more “man” than Adam.
In Gen 1:27, who is the female that is referenced? This is before Eve was created.
Gen 1:28 through 1:30, God seems to give man permission to eat from every tree placed on the earth. Am I reading that wrong?
How do you reconcile between mans creation in Gen 1:27, but not “breathing life into him” until Gen 2.7 Wassup with that?
Now, in Gen 2:27, God names the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and tells Adam (Eve wasn’t created yet) that if he eats from that tree, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
I have a couple of problems here. First, did God lie? Adam did eventually eat from that tree, and he didn’t die that day. Wassup with that? Second, God only instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? Where was the explicit command for Eve, or anyone else, not to eat from it? Third, why was it named the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”? If the name is at all descriptive, it seems God wanted Adam to continue to be ignorant of such things - a kind of “don’t look behind the curtain at Oz” sort of message. Why isn’t that antithetical to free will? Or was Adam doomed to have free will, but not have the knowledge necessary to make good decisions?
In Gen 3:3, Eve tells the serpent that she is not to eat from the tree in the midst of the garden (presumably the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but she isn’t real explicit), and repeats God’s threat of death for eating from it (actually, in this case, from even touching it). How did she know that? Did Adam tell her? Did God tell her? Why was that detail omitted? Did God not anticipate the Serpent’s behavior? If he did, why didn’t he warn Adam and Eve of such likely behavior?
Does Gen 3:5 imply that only Gods know good and evil? Or since this is the Serpent’s words, we can immediately discount this as a falsehood?
In Gen 3:6, did Adam know that the fruit he was eating was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
In Gen 3:7, after eating the fruit, their “eyes were opened”. Were they closed before? Just in Gen 3.6, Eve “saw” the tree.
In Gen 3:9, God couldn’t find Adam, and had to ask “where art thou?” If God is omniscient, why didn’t he know where Adam was?
In Gen 3:10, why was Adam naked, when he had put on the fig leaf back in Gen 3.7?
In Gen 3:11, God asks, “Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” And again, if God is omniscient, why did he have to ask?
In Gen 3:14 God punishs the Serpent. Had the Serpent disobeyed God? Was it not the nature of the Serpent to be “beguiling” (which is kinda implied in Gen 3:1)?
In Gen 3:17, regarding the punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why does God contradict the punishment he gave in Gen 2:27?
In Gen 3:30, Eve is referred to as the mother of all living. All living what? Mother of what? Cain wasn’t around yet, and all the other living things were created before her.
I don’t see how one could interpret this stuff literally, but even as allegory, it seems pretty poor. Any help is appreciated.
RichardC, if this seems like a hijack, let me know, and I’ll take it elsewhere.
Adam and Eve where created as sinless humans. Their souls were perfect and sinless before God until they disobeyed him. It is probably reasonable to assume that their other attributes such as physical appearance, mental ability, etc was also perfect although the Bible does not say so but they were still HUMAN. They were created in God’s image, but they were not God. God does not have the ability to sin. We were not created with this capacity. Humans have the ability to reason and make decision, if they did not have these abilities they would simply be robots.
more questions folks, trying to sum up the debate so far.
Genesis ch 3
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [5] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
only the earthly body died/dies physically, but its also true that we ‘died’ spiritually as well, we immediately lost our ‘innocense’
- its interesting to note the passage says - man has become like one of US - what do you think?, father son and holy ghost, or a multitude of ‘GODS’? or does US mean the angels also present in the garden. or even the serpent.?
like as in - they all are allowed to possess knowledge of good and evil but we are not?
anyways, fact remains, God judged us unfit to live forever, on the earth, we were banned from eating from the tree of life, lest we live forever…
we have 3 score and 10 years, give or take, to work out who we really are, where we came from, where we are going.
what died in the garden of eden.? our spirit.
what needs to be reborn? same answer, our spirit.
what did we lose in the garden? - our God consciousness, our oneness with Him.
we died spiritually, and we lost our innocense, in short, our mind, ( soul) our ego, took charge.
the very 1st question in the bible is from God, to us. - he says - ’ why are you hiding?’
we realised we didnt have any clothes on and tried conceal ourselfs. we removed ourselfs from His presence
i think, we are ( humankind generally ) still running, still trying to hide from Him, still putting ’ I ’ first, and we are not reborn spiritually, reborn as in unity of consciousness., with Him, but also with every other living thing that exists.
we all make ourself islands of self, our ego rules.
is this why God banished us from the tree of life? - knew our inherant tendancy towards greed, selfishness etc?
saw perhaps that we were unworthy to be ‘Gods’?
the story of the tower of babel is another classic example of restrictions placed upon us…
just thoughts folks.
regards
Zanthor
I think you’re reading too much into this passage. The operative phrase is:
The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22
Note the qualified phrase knowing good and evil modifying the previous section like one of us. Thus it seems that God was saying that man had become like God in this respect specifically, not in all ways.
No, I disagree. This wasn’t a mere matter of free will or curiosity by any stretch of the imagination. Let me show you what I mean.
First, we have God creating man in the image of God: thinking, feeling, willing. Man is given dominion over all of creation.
Next, we have God giving Adam one restriction: do NOT eat fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We can presume that at least some period of time then elapses, as the fruit is not eaten until after the serpent has a chat with Eve, and based on her comments, she is well aware of God’s command. So, how does the serpent trick her? First, by introducing doubt into her mind as to the nature of God’s command:
“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Gen 3:1
Tricky, eh? Whom should she believe, God or the serpent? Now, how does Eve answer?
“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Notice that Eve has added to God’s original command, thus distorting His statement. Seems the serpent’s sly tongue is already having effect, as Eve is now lying. Then the serpent strikes:
“You will not surely die…for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. Gen 3:4
See what he says? You will be like God…. This is the argument that sways Eve to eat the fruit. To be like God. Not mere curiosity. Not mere innocence. But to be like GOD! And Adam follows Eve in to sin. As Adam is not involved in the conversation, it appears that he arrives later, and sinned in an even more aggregious manner; he was not duped, as Eve was. That is why the rest of the Bible characterizes sin as having come into the world through one man.
Sorry, I’m still not getting it…
If the Serpent said, “You will not surely die…” and God had said, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” and they did eat, and they didn’t die, which one is lying, God or the Serpent?
Except NaSultainne the biblical account shows that “being like God” was precisely what happened. Indeed there is some question as to whether Eve was duped at all (I don’t think she was).
I addressed the idea of what the commandment was and what the consequences were in the other thread I referenced–here’s a link to my post.
I have no firm opinion on this. I have a couple thoughts, and perhaps someone else has a better answer. FWIW, it’s possible that God is referring to Himself and the angels, who were surely witnesses to His creation. I have also heard that this is a Hebrew specific form of speech, but don’t hold me to that.
No, I disagree witht that. God specifically directs man to “be fruitful and increase in number”
If you read Genesis chapter 1 as a short summary, with Genesis 2
coming after as the detail version of specific events during those days of creation, this passage makes sense. As many books are written in exactly this manner, it shouldn’t be considered such a stretch to do the same with Genesis.
Again, see above.
See above.
Perhaps merely a matter of translation error. My Bible reads that passage as ''when you eat of it, you will surely die." Another interpretation, based on God’s calling out for Adam in Gen 3:9, is that spiritual death was immediate. This would make sense also, with regard to Gen. 3:22, where God expresses concern that man, should he remain in the garden, could live forever by eating from the tree of life. This would indicate that man was not created to be immortal as a feature of his nature.
[QUOTE}Second, God only instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? Where was the explicit command for Eve, or anyone else, not to eat from it?[/QUOTE]
Is there any reason to presume that God would give an explicit command to Adam, prior to Eve’s creation, and then exclude Eve from that same restriction? Not as far as the Bible states, anyway. Also, Eve is well aware of the command, as evidenced by her conversation with the serpent.
Nah, I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there. It makes sense that God wanted no question about which tree was off limits, essentially emphasizing “thattree, right over there.” It’s the same type of emphasis any parent can tell you is applied in order to accentuate the serious nature of the prohibition. In other words, because I’m taking the time to make this clear to you, you should recognize my seriousness in this regard. Also, see my earlier response to MrsFace. Adam didn’t sin the moment God’s back, so to speak, was turned, did he? Nope, he didn’t. As to God wanting Adam to be ignorant, I don’t buy that either. It makes sense to me that God wanted Adam to learn through his relationship with God. Adam, instead, chose knowledge through disobedience and a desire to have knowledge independent of God.
Good question, but does it matter who told her? Bear in mind that if Genesis contained the text of every conversation and event in the garden, it could have been monstrously long.
As to God’s anticipation of events, think about it. Eve had the choice to listen and obey God, or to listen and follow the serpent. Granted, if you presume God to be omniscient, He knew this would result, but does that negate Eve’s, and later Adam’s, responsibility? Not at all. As to why He didn’t warn them, I can only speculate, as we’re all basically doing here anyway. I would venture to suggest that God had a desire to create a being which would choose fellowship with God. In order for that to happen, God had to be willing to take the chance that man would choose otherwise. If you contract man’s history into a single glimpse, you would then be able to see that the span covers man’s retreat from God, God’s active search for man, and, ultimately, man’s return to God. At least that’s how I summarize it. Keeping in mind how people tend to think, I can’t see it happening any other way. Ever know a person who learned from another’s mistakes? In everything? Hardly. People as a rule tend to need to make their own mistakes individually, and I think God intended that, and anticipated it.
[QUOTE]
Does Gen 3:5 imply that only Gods know good and evil? Or since this is the Serpent’s words, we can immediately discount this as a falsehood?
[/QUOTE
Knowing in the material rather than the abstract, yes, I’d say so. Adam could have acquired knowledge through action, but he chose otherwise.
It appears he did in fact know. Sin indicates intentional disobedience, not mischance.
You’re joking, right? You do recognize this as a figure of speech, don’t you?
The Bible goes to great lengths to indicate that sin separates us from God. I think this passage serves two purposes; one, to indicate that Adam and Eve knew their sin and chose to hide it from God rather than address it and seek forgiveness and two, that there resulted that separation I just mentioned. My POV, FWIW.
[QUOTE]
In Gen 3:10, why was Adam naked, when he had put on the fig leaf back in Gen 3.7?
I have no firm opinion on this. I have a couple thoughts, and perhaps someone else has a better answer. FWIW, it’s possible that God is referring to Himself and the angels, who were surely witnesses to His creation. I have also heard that this is a Hebrew specific form of speech, but don’t hold me to that.
No, I disagree witht that. God specifically directs man to “be fruitful and increase in number”
If you read Genesis chapter 1 as a short summary, with Genesis 2
coming after as the detail version of specific events during those days of creation, this passage makes sense. As many books are written in exactly this manner, it shouldn’t be considered such a stretch to do the same with Genesis.
Again, see above.
See above.
Perhaps merely a matter of translation error. My Bible reads that passage as ''when you eat of it, you will surely die." Another interpretation, based on God’s calling out for Adam in Gen 3:9, is that spiritual death was immediate. This would make sense also, with regard to Gen. 3:22, where God expresses concern that man, should he remain in the garden, could live forever by eating from the tree of life. This would indicate that man was not created to be immortal as a feature of his nature.
Is there any reason to presume that God would give an explicit command to Adam, prior to Eve’s creation, and then exclude Eve from that same restriction? Not as far as the Bible states, anyway. Also, Eve is well aware of the command, as evidenced by her conversation with the serpent.
Nah, I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there. It makes sense that God wanted no question about which tree was off limits, essentially emphasizing “thattree, right over there.” It’s the same type of emphasis any parent can tell you is applied in order to accentuate the serious nature of the prohibition. In other words, because I’m taking the time to make this clear to you, you should recognize my seriousness in this regard. Also, see my earlier response to MrsFace. Adam didn’t sin the moment God’s back, so to speak, was turned, did he? Nope, he didn’t. As to God wanting Adam to be ignorant, I don’t buy that either. It makes sense to me that God wanted Adam to learn through his relationship with God. Adam, instead, chose knowledge through disobedience and a desire to have knowledge independent of God.
Good question, but does it matter who told her? Bear in mind that if Genesis contained the text of every conversation and event in the garden, it could have been monstrously long.
As to God’s anticipation of events, think about it. Eve had the choice to listen and obey God, or to listen and follow the serpent. Granted, if you presume God to be omniscient, He knew this would result, but does that negate Eve’s, and later Adam’s, responsibility? Not at all. As to why He didn’t warn them, I can only speculate, as we’re all basically doing here anyway. I would venture to suggest that God had a desire to create a being which would choose fellowship with God. In order for that to happen, God had to be willing to take the chance that man would choose otherwise. If you contract man’s history into a single glimpse, you would then be able to see that the span covers man’s retreat from God, God’s active search for man, and, ultimately, man’s return to God. At least that’s how I summarize it. Keeping in mind how people tend to think, I can’t see it happening any other way. Ever know a person who learned from another’s mistakes? In everything? Hardly. People as a rule tend to need to make their own mistakes individually, and I think God intended that, and anticipated it.
[QUOTE]
Does Gen 3:5 imply that only Gods know good and evil? Or since this is the Serpent’s words, we can immediately discount this as a falsehood?
[/QUOTE
Knowing in the material rather than the abstract, yes, I’d say so. Adam could have acquired knowledge through action, but he chose otherwise.
It appears he did in fact know. Sin indicates intentional disobedience, not mischance.
You’re joking, right? You do recognize this as a figure of speech, don’t you?
The Bible goes to great lengths to indicate that sin separates us from God. I think this passage serves two purposes; one, to indicate that Adam and Eve knew their sin and chose to hide it from God rather than address it and seek forgiveness and two, that there resulted that separation I just mentioned. My POV, FWIW.
It doesn’t say he was naked in Gen 3:10. Adam volunteers that he is hiding due to his nakedness, and that’s why God asks him where he came by this knowledge.
Does not a parent ask an obviously guilty child a leading question, giving the child the opportunity to come clean?
Ahh, but the serpent, by deception, came between God and his ultimate creation, and created a rift resulting in the death of man. How could God not punish him?
It doesn’t. Death delayed is still death. Adam and Eve do die.
Gen 3:20, I think you meant? My Bible reads “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” It seems clear that this refers to all living people; does it really need to say more?
Darn it, I hiccuped when submitting my reply. If a mod could remove the first of the two posts, I’d be ever so appreciative.
Who said eating the apple was a BAD thing? Where would we be if they never had eaten it? The garden seems to be a little cramped, to me.
oops, premature post.
NaSulainne, that was a very thorough rebutal, and IMHO a very good one too.
Just to nitpick at the hiding part, I believe it was satan who told them that they were naked (would bust out the Bible, but I don’t want to get out of the chair) And said, in effect “that’s bad!” So when God calls, who didn’t seem to care about his nudity before, Adam hides his junk and says “don’t look at me” and God says “Who said you were naked? You ate the apple! Outta the pool!” Although, the separation from God thing is a VERY good way of looking at it. enlightened
hey Greensabre, no need to get out of the chair to bust out the bible, try here.
http://www.biblegateway.com
its all at your fingertips, just enter a word, phrase or a passage reference.
my thoughts - Satan didnt have to tell them they were naked post apple eating.
they immediately knew.
question remains tho - was our ‘obtaining’ knowledge of good and evil neccesarily ‘bad’. like, we did get the chance to stand on our own 2 feet as it were, make or break our destiny by our own efforts, wreak all manner of havoc on our planet and each other.
however, it seems the essential loss and price was. - our oneness with God.
you tell me, was the journey worth the pain?
Zan
I’m pretty sure they knew they were naked all along, but (I might have missed making this point, which I should have) they didn’t think it was bad. What makes nudity before and after Apple any different? However, I feel kind of odd debating about the nakedness of them : )
Hmmm, well, the main belief in christianity, I think, is to return to live with God. HOWEVER, here’s the thing:
-
If Adam and/or Eve ate the apple, they would “surely die.” Thus, we can safely assume that if they didn’t eat it, they wouldn’t die.
-
If Adam and Eve never ate the apple, they would not have been able to die, and thus, they wouldn’t be able to return to God (although God walked and talked with them, they weren’t in his house, or Heaven, if you will).
-
Since one ate the apple, the other HAD to. If not, then Adam and Eve would be separated (one would have to stay in the garden) and thus humans couldn’t propogate.
So, even though it was a commandment NOT to eat the apple, it HAD to happen. “Transgression”
NP re your not mentioning becomming aware they were naked, assumed you meant that they allready knew they were naked but didnt see anything wrong with it untill after they ate of the apple.
i didnt mention it either, took it to be a given fact. so,
we are talking about loss of innocense here.
i take that to mean self consciousness came into being, as opposed to the state that existed before - ie God consciousness.
like, they didnt have to eat of the apple to die, return to God, they were allready one with God. but as you have said, only in the garden.
- you do have a point, they were with God, but not in his heaven, only in the garden, and only so long as we remained in a state of ignorant bliss.
if this is so then i guess it means, we were placed on the earth to populate it, not automatically be heirs of His kingdom heaven.
and the moment we became like gods, we were instantly denied the tree of life, and His company.
Christians will tell you this is because God cannot be in the same place as sin. and we on attaining awareness of good and evil, we automatically became sinfull, by disobediance, for example.
i would be interested on others thoughts on this.
Zan
Regarding Adam and Eve and their reaction to the knowledge of good and evil:
Gen 3:7 after eating the forbidden fruit, they realize their nakedness and procure fig leaves for covering.
Gen 3:8 they hide from God’s presence.
This seems to me to indicate more than awareness of mere physical nakedness, rather an actual comprehension of the insufficiency of their coverings. I like your phrasing Zanthor, that they had replaced God-consciousness with self-consciousness.
As to whether in fact Adam’s actions were in any sense necessary for man to take his place as an independent, self guiding being, as I think you’re suggesting, there I have to disagree with you.
First, I don’t think Adam and Eve were in a state of “ignorant bliss”. Far from it. I think they were fully aware and cognizant of their situation. I think it’s clear they were given an opportunity to develop a relationship, and in direct contact, with their Creator. They chose self-will. They decided they didn’t need God. As to their being tempted through the ruse of becoming god-like, well, I have to almost laugh at their naivete. I might even call it stupidity. Did they not recognize more authority and power in God than mere “knowledge” of good and evil?
It’s interesting that you conjecture on the big-picture, so to speak, desirability of Adam’s Fall. I can’t say I agree with your POV, but it’s interesting. Absent any clear idea of the alternative reality, it’s difficult to judge. I do have to admit, however, that in my understanding of the whole of Bible scripture, it’s abundantly clear that God permitted Adam to sin; Adam gained his “freedom” to choose life with or without God’s terms. Ever since man has spent his life struggling against God, exercising what he thinks is control over his own destiny. Ultimately, God will have the final say.
Greensabre, I find it curious that you assume that there would be no future little Adams running around had only Eve sinned. God couldn’t or wouldn’t create another mate? At the same time, I do have to wonder if, in Adam’s mind, one of the thoughts that decided it for him was to be with Eve, created from part of him, right or wrong. Sort of a sink-or-swim-together mentality.
And it all would have been avoided, on the part of Adam at least, if God had held up to his end of the bargain. Serpent convinces Eve to eat fruit->God strikes Eve down in front of Adam->Adam spends his afternoons getting intimate with the wildebeasts until God creates Eve version 2.0.
Even better, God lets them know that he has placed a serpent in their midst that will lie to them, and explains to them what a lie is so they know what to look for. You see, until they encountered the serpent they had no concept of lying and could only assume that the serpent was as sincere and helpful as God was. IMHO opinion, it turned out to be a safe assumption.
NaSultainne, thank you sincerely for taking the time to address my questions.
Frankly, I don’t personally find much insight from your comments. It still appears to me that Genesis has some signficant holes, even as allegory, and one must “read between the lines” to make any sense out of it. And many interpretations in this thread go well beyond reading between the lines, IMHO.
The issue of the reference to “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26 is an example. Sure, you could say that he was referring to angels. And one could suppose he was referring to other Gods. Elsewhere, generally, he speaks of “I” and not we, so this seems quite odd to me.
It is correct to point out that Gen 1:27 talks about the creation of man, both male and female (and the following “be fruitful…”). However, in Gen 1:31, God saw all he created, and it was “very good”. He changed his mind in Gen 2:18, when he saw that man alone was not good. Sounds like God was quite fallible - far from perfect himself.
I suspect you would reference the explanation that Gen 1 is a short summary, and Gen 2 provides more details of those events. That would explain a good bit, but is there any evidence to support it? Gen 1 ends after the sixth day. Gen 2 starts with the seventh day. You explain away a couple of my questions with this assertion, but I cannot find any reason to accept the assertion. In fact, all evidence appears (to me) to the contrary.
For me, the most critical problem with Gen 1 through 3 is this issue of the punishment from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You suggest my quote may be a translation error (I’m looking at King James Version, from blueletterbible.com, btw). I struggle with that explanation. Even with your interpretation/translation of “When you eat of it …”, the same problem exists, because when he did eat, he didn’t die.
Either God lied (and the Serpent told the truth), or he changed his mind regarding the punishment. Neither one supports the theory that God is perfect.
The other interpretation you offer, that spiritual death was immediate, is not supported by the text. That is what I mean by reading between the lines. You (or someone) is putting meaning in to support what you want it to say/mean, but those words are not there (you reference Gen 3:9, and I cannot find any word in that verse to support your position).
The other bit of support you offer really confuses me. The piece about God’s reference in Gen 3:22 that man might live forever if he also ate from the tree of life (and uh, in that verse, there is that “us” reference again). Now, God never instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of life. In fact, he told Adam that he could eat from all the trees in the garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I agree with your conclusion - that man must have been created mortal - but I fail to see how that supports your interpretation from above.
In fact, it creates an interesting contradiction. What if Adam had first eaten from the tree of life, before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Would he have become (a) God? Would he have died, or lived forever? Presumably, he would become immortal, would have perfect knowledge - what else was he missing to be god-like? See the reference in Gen 3:22 about becoming “one of us”. That, again, implies more than one God, and also implies that Adam could have become one.
On the next point, you ask me if there is any reason to presume that God would give an explicit command to Adam, and not expect it to apply to Eve as well. To respond, let me ask you a question, similar to the one you asked me on a different issue. If a parent gives an explicit instruction to one child, without the other present, and the other child violates the instruction, do you punish the other child? Would you first inquire as to whether the other child knew they weren’t supposed to do that?
But this issue you will quelch with your next statement, that obviously, Eve knew, due to her conversation with the Serpent. OK. But how did God know that Eve knew it was forbidden? Because he is omniscient? Again, while that explanation might work, it isn’t supported by the text, at least of Gen 1 - 3. And I have a whole other set of problems if you support it with other books.
In your next paragraph, you point out that God emphasized which tree that Adam was forbidden to be eaten from. However, in Eve’s comments to the Serpent, she was much less specific. And the idea that God didn’t want Adam to have knowledge independent of God is downright scary. God is a control freak?
I’m glad it makes sense to you, but it looks to be reading between the lines again. Is there anything to support it?
On the next issue, you ask whether it is important about who instructed Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And I say, yes, it is important. While I can appreciate that not all conversations were recorded - this one is pretty important! Adam was obviously fallible. If Adam had passed along God’s instruction, perhaps he wasn’t specific enough, or lacked the emphasis you mentioned above. And since she didn’t quite get it right, it suggests she either didn’t clearly understand what was forbidden or the punishment, or she lied. Either one is problematic.
On the next issue, I asked about why God wouldn’t have warned Adam and Eve of the Serpent’s evil ways. Now, I never asked about where the Serpent came from, but God had earlier observed that all of his creation was very good. And that doesn’t seem to describe the Serpent. Either God was wrong, lying, or he didn’t create the Serpent. Regardless of that issue, if we assume God is omniscient, he knew the Serpent was “more subtil”. Since Adam and Eve were not knowledgeable about good and evil, how else were they to know that the Serpent might deceive them?
In the end analysis, that issue doesn’t really bother me. What bothers me is that the Serpent appears to be more truthful than God (explicitly in regards to the punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In fact, the Serpents words in Gen 3:4 and 3:5, while generally considered to be lies, are in fact supported by the text as accurate!
To me, this is a critical problem in interpretting Genesis as Christians typically do. I can’t find any support for it.
To my question about whether Adam knew the fruit he was eating was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you say, “It appears he did in fact know. Sin indicates intentional disobedience, not mischance,” but again, the text does not support this. Granted, he became aware AFTER eating from the fruit, but did he know before? What do you point to that suggests Adam purposely and willfully disobeyed God? This looks to me to be reading between the lines again, putting in the meaning that helps Genesis make sense, when, in fact, it doesn’t.
And no, I wasn’t joking. The “figure of speech” explanation is weak. Are you suggesting that it is a translation short-cut, that the actual text meant something to the affect of “became aware”, but used the figure of speech “opened their eyes”? I’ll grant that this is a nit, however.
Now, the next area deals with Adam’s hiding and nakedness. And this is just full of contradictions. Your first response is that, “The Bible goes to great lengths to indicate that sin separates us from God.” The bible fails that test in just the first three chapters of Genesis. Using strictly the text, all evidence suggests that God lied in Gen 2:27. The rest of the Bible may try to “spin” it differently, but at least Gen 1 through 3 doesn’t. Next you suggest that, “Adam and Eve knew their sin and chose to hide it from God rather than address it and seek forgiveness.” Now, once they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and their eyes were opened, wouldn’t they then have knowledge of God omniscience? Wouldn’t they know that hiding was futile?
And again, what evidence is there that Adam (purposefully) sinned?
Huh? I’m not following your (lack of) logic here.
Does a parent then punish the child that does come clean? Adam never lied about eating the fruit. Otherwise, the parent is a pretty shitty parent, for essentially setting up the child to get into further trouble for lying. Is that what God was doing? If he knew answer, he was being an ass, and if he didn’t know…
Many more contradictions. First, what deception? What death of man? And you said earlier, “Sin indicates intentional disobedience, not mischance”, so wouldn’t God have to have given the Serpent instruction not to deceive? And then see my other questions about all creation being very good, where/how did the Serpent come about?
Now, as to my question about why God contradicted himself in Gen 3:17, versus what he said in Gen 2:17 (which, btw, I screwed up the reference in my original post where I said Gen 2:27), you responded, “It doesn’t. Death delayed is still death. Adam and Eve do die.” I don’t see how you can make that claim. In my version, God said, “thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” In your version, God said, “when you eat of it, you will surely die.” Neither of those can be explained by “death delayed is still death.” You can’t have it both ways. We essentially agreed earlier that Adam was mortal when he was created. If the punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was death eventually, then that wasn’t much punishment, now was it? And further, it definitely wasn’t the punishment that God did hand out. I’m sorry, but God contradicted himself here, and unless you continue reading between the lines, I don’t see a way out of it.
And on my last point, yes, I was referencing Gen 3:20, not Gen 3:30. And your version makes more sense than the King James version. No, it doesn’t need to say more.
I don’t expect to sway you with my arguments here. Feel free to respond, but don’t feel compelled to do so. I sincerely appreciate your time in responding to my first post, but I think you did answer my questions. I will take it that your interpretations of these passages are pretty common for Christians generally, but if anyone else sees it much differently, I would interested in their answers as well.
Although, if the response has alot of “one with God”, or “in the garden but not in heaven”, etc., then it probably won’t do much good. I don’t see any of those references. Does everyone else’s Bible have writing between the lines? Is that the only way someone can make sense of the gobbledy-gook that is Genesis chapters 1 through 3?