The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual

Aracnophilia, Certainly. This is expounded by John in John chapter 1. He makes clear reference to Genesis 1 with his words in the beginning was the Word, the Word being the Greek word logos, which was used by the Stoics (who were contemporaries of John) to describe the vitality, or life of the universe. Have I not clearly stated that I believe the modern mind places a false dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual? The modern mind’s view of the spiritual is reduced to a meaningless, immaterial, and mystical force that is like to a white ghost floating around wooing people with his wand with a star on the end of it. This is a pagan view of spirituality to which I do not ascribe.What do I assert in my OP? That the spiritual is the foundation of this world. This means that there is no matter, no life, and no truth which is not grounded in the transcendent, sovereign, and perfect God of Creation. To conclude from this though that God is not a spirit is foolish: Jesus asserts in plain speech that: God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. - John 4:24And did you also read in my OP what I said right after I quoted Genesis 1:1? Scripture must interpret scripture. Just look up all the references to the Spirit of God. But what one believes by the word Spirit is where the controversy can begin. No one disputes that God is a Spirit. What Spirit means is another issue. In John 3, Jesus establishes something about the Spirit of God: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every man that is born of the Spirit — John 3:8(?)Jesus says that you cannot directly see the Spirit, though its effects are seen. Scripture must interpret scripture. But to begin with, there is a reason Genesis 1:1 phrases it "heavens (plural) and earth", not "heaven and earth". Had Moses written "heaven and earth", then heaven would amount to nothing more than the firmament, which is described in more detail later in Genesis 1. So the reason the plural of 'heaven' is used is because there are multiple "heavens". Some people disagree just how many there are, and which heaven is which, but there is (or at least should be) a general consensus that there are multiple heavens. This is extremely obvious from the language of the rest of the Bible. It seems most reasonable to assume that there are 3 heavens, the first being simply the firmament (which is, in modern-day terminology, the atmosphere). The second is the space in which the stars are contained, and the third is the throne room of God. Am I contriving this out of thin air? No: It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years agowhether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knowssuch a one was caught up to the third heaven. 2 Corinthians 12:1-2-Paul later in the chapter refers to this place as "paradise". Also, as you come to find out later, Paul is talking about himself when he refers to "a man". Obviously there are multiple heavens. The reference to this heaven as the third heaven clearly distinguishes it from the firmament of Genesis 1. As I said though, there is controversy about the specific placing of these "heavens". Some say (as you) that the firmament is the clouds. Others say that all of space between the earth and the edge of the universe is the firmament, and that there is a huge mass of water encompassing the universe, which is expanding. This would be good ol' Russell Humphreys idea. Of course, the truth of such a claim is another topic for another thread.With all that said, though, we don't need to get into a prolonged discussion on this thread about the possible interpretations of Genesis 1:1. Let that topic remain on the thread in which it originated. Theology is the study of God. Science is the study of nature. Thus, one's view of the relation between God and nature is inextricably related to their view of the relation between theology and science. Do the words "In the beginning God" mean anything to you? Before the heavens (plural) and the earth were, God was. He was in the beginning. In fact, he is the very beginning. And the end. The Alpha and the Omega. Truly you don't think that the Word, in whom all things consist, was natural? All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. - John 1:3

​

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. - Colossians 1:16-17If all things consist in Him, and those things are created by Him, there must be some distinction between them. The distinction is Creator versus created. And the Creator is to be worshipped: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. - Romans 1:20-23Look at those words: His invisible attributes...even His eternal power and Godhead. Understand those words to understand what I'm trying to say. His power and rule over all of Creation is invisible: and yet it is clearly seen. He reveals his Lordship in nature, and men, being unrighteous, resist it, and wish to be utterly autonomous. Therefore, God sent Jesus Christ, as the Lord who gathers all of His sheep to himself, and from whom all evildoers scatter. Our duty under Jesus Christ is to give all of Creation up to His Lordship. This involves submitting to His (Christ's) Law, and grounding all endeavors in His lordship. Thus, science cannot function properly apart from him. Scientists who wish to study the Creation apart from the Creator are vain in their pursuits, and will end, ultimately, in failure. Theologians, unfortunately, often submit to this false dichotomy (or should I say antithesis?) by saying that theology and science exist in their own realms, and should not interact at all, and that truths in theology do not effect truths in science, and vice versa. This is utterly false. It is impossible that the truths upon which every single bit of this world is grounded should be ignored when studying Creation. If you wish to discuss why we should speak in Hebrew instead of English, start a thread on that discussion and don't waste space on this thread with such off topic, diverting, and distracting nit-pickings.

---

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)

​

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

I believe what I quoted was Heinlein's statement that "Belief gets in the way of learning." I further emphasized this by adding the passage quoted above.There is no contradiction there. Nonsense. Your definition of religion is of no importance. We are discussing beliefs and whether or not they detract from learning. I suggest that firmly held beliefs prohibit learning. Religions are the examples of this. Fundamentalist religions are premier examples of this. So? That seems to work better than religious belief. Look at the massive number of Christian denominations, sects, and other subdivisions. There are an estimated 40,000 of them! If there was some empirical evidence which could determine which of these beliefs were correct, there should be far fewer, or only one such denomination. Instead, there is an increasing number of subdivisions.This is because these are based on belief, and not on empirical evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This does not follow.Even if there is a God, I can obviously find out facts about the universe, such as (for example) that bananas grow on trees, without believing in him; just as I can gain nutritional value from bananas by eating them without believing in him.Would you give some some instance of a fact that I couldn't find out without first believing in God?And after all, if it mattered, wouldn't there be two sciences, one for theists and one for atheists, each reporting a different speed of light and charge on the electron? Wouldn't it also follow that the different religions and sects, having different concepts of God, would have different sciences? Wouldn't there be a Protestant periodic table and a Catholic periodic table?The only effect we see is that sometimes religious dogma will lead people to deny well-evidenced facts (flat-earthers, young-earthers, creationists, geocentrists); but in these cases their religion is not preventing them from being "vain in their pursuits" and "ending, ultimately, in failure"; rather, it is precisely the reason why they do so.The cases in which religion has impeded science are too numerous and well-known to repeat. Here's a single instance which is perhaps less well-known: Servetus, who also had the distinction of describing the function of pulmonary circulation sixty years before William Harvey, was burned alive. Calvin, of course, founded the Reformed Church, but cannot really be said to have done anything useful.

Dr. Adequate,I'm thinking I should change my wording of "false dichotomy" to "false antithesis". I am, after all, disputing primarily the antithetical view which many theists have of the spiritual and the natural. They essentially make the spiritual meaningless by saying that the spiritual and the natural do not interact. They concede that religion is the antithesis of science. I'm claiming that all have a religion, and that this religion is the grounds for whatever they do, whether it be science, or bungee jumping, or painting a picture, or writing music, or learning, etc. That is, one's religion determines why they do what they do, what they do, and what they intend to accomplish by their actions. A super-naturalist is not necessarily a spiritualistic person. They are merely a person who believes there is something that transcends the laws of nature and can violate them. A non-supernaturalist is then merely one who believes nothing can transcend the laws of nature. What would be an example of a culture who believed in a god who could not transcend the laws of nature? I might know of one: modern, secular, humanistic culture. The god of this culture is the man (thus the label humanistic). He is weak relative to the laws of nature, but godlike in that he defines truth (think moral-relativism), and he prevents nature from crashing all to pieces (think environmentalism).Regarding Utilitarianism, Kant's Moral Imperative, and the Golden Rule:Utilitarianism is grounded in the natural in that its only motivation lies in the natural, so that the principial (or spiritual) is defined in terms of the natural. You could word it like this: "because the natural is all that is, ever was, or ever will be; and because life is defined in terms of a struggle for survival: only that which is for the good of homo sapiens is moral". You see, Utilitarianism's principle is derived from man. Man is then the ultimate reality. He defines truth, and he must save the world.I don't really know about Kant's Moral Imperative, so I won't comment on that.The Golden Rule is much the same as Utilitarianism, at least - that is - when it is used as a principle apart from God. When Jesus famously made this proclamation, he spoke to an entirely Jewish audience. These were people very educated in the Law, and who were supposed to understand the truths of all of Scripture. Thus, the Golden Rule as spoken by Christ would have been exclusively interpreted in terms of Scripture. It was not necessarily some revolutionary and brand new rule that God hadn't yet told anybody about. It had already been revealed. Jesus just repeated it to them. But when the Golden Rule is used apart from God's Word, it becomes a humanistic, anthropocentric (a little redundancy there from the Department of Redundancy Department) principle. Such dietary laws are symbolic. The forbidding of pigs from the diet was symbolic of the Covenantal exclusion of the Gentiles (this is not bologna: it is clearly understood throughout Scripture), an exclusion which was done away with with the advent of the New Covenant. Thus, these symbolical ordinances are not anymore for our outward observation. They are grounded principially in the understanding of the Covenant God (Yahweh), and symbolically show how He relates to His people throughout history. They draw lines in the sand with regard to those within and those without the Covenant body.I do not, however, claim such knowledge as to be able to cite the significance of all dietary laws, nor all sacrificial laws. Hopefully, though, you will not on this basis illogically reject everything else I have to say. Not precisely in Biblical Law. In Biblical Law, God's first commandments were the Ten Commandments, given to the Israelites following their Exodus from Egypt. The laws afterward are all general interpretations of these principles. The principle, "thou shalt not murder", applies more broadly than one would at first imagine. The law of parapets thus resembles a proper interpretation of the previously given principle, "thou shalt not murder". Thus, you do not derive the proper principle from the law of parapets, but from the proper principle, you derive the law of parapets. Perhaps I made it sound as though it were the other way around. If so, my mistake. This is where we err in America. Case law as a source of truth using abstraction and generalization provides too much leeway for judges, so that they can twist the meaning of principles beyond recognition. That is, someone can abstract a case law, and abstract it, and keep abstracting and generalizing it until eventually you get a principle which really has no correlation to the original case. The current-day court system in America is strongly autonomous, and has little regard for the judge of the universe when making its decisions. Obviously, the decisions that judges come to have now become little more than a matter of mere political clout, so that two judges can approach a case from diametrically opposite sides of the ball only because one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. They interpret precedent differently, and bit by bit they pervert the principles because they forget God. As an example, they pervert the concept of liberty by using it as a reason for justifying abortion. In the name of personal liberty they allow women to murder their babies as a matter of personal "choice". But liberty is defined and granted by the only true Law, God's Law, which in no place defines murder of a fetus as being any different than murder of a human. This is because a fetus is a human. God's Law establishes God as the granter of life. Thus, we do not murder according to our own will. God's sovereign and transcendent rule of all things must show in our system of Law. Perhaps they could be rendered obsolete by virtue of a Godly society. Too much statutory law becomes a form of enslavement, restricting liberty so much so as to make it useless. Principial Law can only be observed so far as the principles are understood and loved on an individual basis. When statutory laws abound in a godless society, observance of the law becomes only outward, and not inward. When there is no inward observance of the law, society deteriorates until it eventually collapses. Statutory law serves to deaden the senses of a person so that they no longer wish to observe the Law. This is how the Pharisees perverted the Law: they confided in mere outward or statutory observance of the Law, as though this was proper obedience. But true obedience to the Law is possible only when the heart has been transformed by Christ to love the Law, and to delight in its observance, not for ritual's sake, but for Christ's sake...Conclusion: godless society deteriorates unavoidably. A lasting, healthy society is only possible where men love Christ more than man.

---

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)

​

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

um, no.logos is the greek word for reason, or speech. it's the root of our english word "logic". it is probably used by john because genesis 1 reflects god's creative act as one of speech: god commands the earth to create itself. and yet, you just appealed to pagan philosophy above. and you are still treating "spirit" as it if it somehow a separate concept. the ancient jews who wrote the bible had no concept of spirituality apart from their natural world. contradictory nonsense, mostly. again, you are treating them as if they are separate concept, with prime emphasis placed on the spirit. the bible does not do as it lacks the concept that the two are any different. yes, and as i replied, that is not a reasonable assumption, as the bible does not treat spiritual and physical as separate concepts. further, there are references to god's physical presence. ah, the mantra of those incapable of using their own brains. tell me, how do we interpret the scripture that interprets scripture? i do. at least in the concept that you're using it in. err, no. before we go off interpreting scripture with other scripture, it does help to know what the heck you're reading in the first place. and that requires having a working knowledge of the language."heaven" is שמים. it's a word that exists only in dual structure, because having a singular is nonsense in hebrew. there are several other words like this in genesis 1. off the top of my head, מים or "water" and more importantly, אלהים "god". none of these are actually plural. they are just simply concepts that don't properly exist as a singular definable entity.sort of like how we say "pants" and "scissors" even if we're referring to one thing. ah, but scripture must interpret scripture.

quote:

---

וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם
"and god called the firmament, 'heavens'."

​

-- Genesis 1:8

---

note that it's the same word, with the same dual construction, and in translations that render "heavens" in the first verse, it's also rendered "heavens" here. only be people that know nothing about hebrew. these are the same clowns we see asserting that there are multiple gods creating in genesis 1:1, and for all the same reasons. you may feel free to speak about the language of the rest of the bible once you demonstrate that you know the language of the bible: hebrew. yes, you are. i have no idea what paul meant, but it (like pretty much everything else he wrote) has no basis in the hebrew bible. frankly, i suspect that you're reading entirely too much into a simple idiom. but if you'd really like to look into alternative hebrew cosmologies, i suggest qabala, which iirc asserts nine spheres of the heavens, each with its own angel making it move. again, as i pointed out, that thread is just about how to read the verse. it says,

quote:

---

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים

---

literally, "in the beginning of the creating of god" which is, more fluidly in english, "when god began creating". like i said, there's a reason that you should determine what the bible says before you go off half-cocked about what that means. if you're only reading it in translation, and know nothing about the language, you're going to miss a whole of the linguistic implications and cultural context, even if you have a very good translation. and you do not have a very good translation. plurality covered above, but granted. obviously, god had to exist before he could do anything. no. i think these concepts are meaningless in analysis of the text, because the authors had no concept that the two were any different. also, why the hell can't you stand by your argument? sure. not everything is god. only yahweh is god. that doesn't mean that god is somehow wholly different in form or constitution from his creation. in fact, you will find that genesis specifically says that we are made to be like god. you might wanna tell that to the israelites following a pillar of smoke and fire through the desert. to them, their god was very real, and very visible. and he even let moses see his physical body. again, if you want to interpret the bible, it helps if you can read it. as you have demonstrated above, you have a number of faulty ideas about what the bible means because you have misread what the bible says.and yahweh vs "jehovah" is not an issue of hebrew vs. english. it's quite acceptable to say "moses" instead of "moshe" and "joshua" instead of yehoshuah, etc. but "jehovah" is rather specifically a bastardization of the name of god, the result of reading inappropriate vowels, added to remind the hebrew reader to say adonay instead of "yahweh".

---

אָרַח

If "validating and invalidating empirical claims" constitutes an idolatrous worship of man, then not only is Christianity not necessary to science, it is not even compatible with it any more than it would be compatible with worshiping a golden calf.

I don't know of many theists who would say that. Wouldn't any miracle involve the spiritual acting on the natural? Well, no. Again, you're simply misdescribing the situation. The word "god", after all, has a meaning. A moral relativist would tell you precisely that no-one's moral opinions are truth; and an environmentalist typically blames man for causing nature to "crash all to pieces". To an environmentalist, man is not so much a god as he is the serpent in Eden. The Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."So, for example, according to the C.I. you shouldn't drop litter, because you wouldn't wish everyone to do that.So instead of the Golden Rule of "Do as you would be done by", it's "Do as you would have everyone do". But it's similar in effect. I think my point stands: it is perfectly possible for a believer in God to be legalistic, and for a non-believer to be guided by abstract principle, just as well as vice versa. Yes, well, any time God wishes to show up in court and act as amicus curiae I'm sure he'll be listened to with great respect. Until then, we're pretty much on our own. No ... you'd need a "Godly society" in which everyone knew instinctively, without being told, how to construct safe buildings.Without this sort of preternatural intelligence, it is in fact a good idea if someone writes down somewhere how to do this. I don't see why.Certainly there are aspects of god-ridden societies that I would hardly wish to bring back. (And if you wish to say that those societies were not really godly, then remember that they'd have said the same of you, just before burning you as a heretic.)

i believe there have even been a few attempts to subpoena god, but he's never shown up. and he's very hard to track down and fine when he's found in contempt.

---

אָרַח

In the case of Chambers v. God the case was dismissed because of the impossibility of serving process on the deity in question. According to Judge Marion Polk: "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice".The court made a similar finding in the case of Mayo v. Satan.

So hobbies are tantamount to religions? There is no symbolism in the dietary laws. It means what it says, and it's not hard to understand why they were created, namely, they promoted disease. But more to the point, these are Moses' rules, not God's decrees. According to whom? We have countless societies that identify with Christianity and yet there is no discernible difference. After all, the US is routinely cited as a "Christian nation" yet its leaders have no compunction with invading sovereign nations for gain under the guise of a humanitarian effort.Might still makes right in Christian ethos.*I sense a No True Scotsman fallacy right around the corner*Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I think he means that one's religious views inform the way one practices one's hobbies.So for example with gardening:* The Christian method: pray for flowers. When they don't grow, accept God's will.
* The Muslim method: pray for flowers. When they don't grow, blow up the garden.
* The Buddhist method: there is no garden. There is no gardener.
* The Jewish method: I should take up gardening now? I don't have troubles enough?
* The Hindu method: die and reincarnate as a tree.

aracnophilia, Given the context of the account of the Fall of man in Genesis 3, it is very reasonable to assume that the phrase "knowledge of good and evil" means "defining of good and evil". This is reasonable given the fact that by eating of the fruit of the tree, Adam and Eve believed that they had a better definition of good and evil than did God. God had said that it was evil to eat of the tree. They decided it was good. Thus, their sin lay in the fact that they put themselves in the place of God, saying that they were the definers of good and evil. A god is one who defines good and evil. The Law therefore says, "thou shalt have no other gods before me". This would also include man: man is not to be set up as a god, as though he could define good and evil. This idea is exemplified by the serpent's statement in vs. 5 of chapter 3: "when ye shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". I find it curious that you, an apparent skeptic of the Bible, have set yourself against the majority of Christian theologians by such statements. They are the experts of biblical exegetic; just like scientists are the "experts" of "earthly" exegetic. You get my point?With that said, the final and best way to properly interpret the text is to examine the text itself (in context, of course). This, of course, does not forbid the consultation of experts in exegetic: just as you can consult scientists in determining truths about nature.Expounding on my statement "in context", I find it curious also that you apply such a hermeneutic to Genesis 1:1 as would never be used in exegesis of any other written work. That is, you spend hours laboring over all the possible interpretations of a given word based on syntax, cultural context, evolution of the meaning of the word, and anything else that could possibly contribute to the meaning of the word. Yet you fail to consult the text surrounding the verse in your exegesis. Though grammatical and cultural examination is indeed proper and often necessary in interpretation of a word or phrase, contextual examination is the means most often employed in interpretation of a written work.This assumes that when reading the work you assume the author to be consistent in his work, and that he will not tend to make statements in one place that directly contradict those statements made in another place. In light of this, a given phrase's meaning is only properly interpreted in light of other phrases relating to the same topic.With all this said, we don't need to get into a drawn out dialogue on Biblical hermeneutics. Have you failed to consider the imagery of the sacrificial lambs? And have you failed to consider the meaning of the sacrificial lambs based on the writing of David in the Psalms?

---

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)

​

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

There is no support for a "Fall" in Genesis.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

there is no "fall" in the christian sense. adam and chavah are kicked out of the garden for disobeying god. or rather, lest they be like god.

quote:

---

And the LORD God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" So the LORD God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken. He drove man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

​

-- Genesis 3:22-24

---

it is rarely reasonable to assume, especially not when your "givens" are faulty. no, not better. the same. as i quoted above,

quote:

---

And the LORD God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad..."

​

-- Genesis 3:22

---

god says that they are now as god. not better than god, not thinking they are better than god, but like god. no, god said it would kill them.

quote:

---

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die."

​

-- Genesis 2:16,17

---

he didn't say it was evil. adam would not have understood the concept of "evil", as that would require eating from the tree. no, the serpent said that god lied, and that it wouldn't kill them. rather, it would open their eyes, and they would know good and evil:

quote:

---

And the serpent said to the woman, "You are not going to die, but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, who knows good and bad."

​

-- Genesis 3:4,5

---

the particular expression used in the next few verses is כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל, "as good for eating". meaning, "not poison" and it wouldn't kill her. their sin was disobedience. man is not capable of defining good and evil -- the tree just made them aware of those definitions. prior to this, knowing good and evil was the place of god. he would then tell man what to do. this story is, you see, the whole precursor to genesis, which is largely about god and man wrestling with the concept of morality. it is precisely this very struggle, caused by man understand the difference between right and wrong, that sometimes puts man and god at odds. this struggle is the reasoning behind the torah: a set of laws based on fair punishments and consequences, that limits vengeance and reprisals, and that establishes the will and expectations of god ahead of time. it eliminates the rule-by-whim seen in genesis. indeed, but god himself is a party to the law as well. it is a contract, in effect, that binds the two parties, man and god. as shown above, the serpent was correct. their eyes were opened, they did know good and evil, and they didn't die: it took 900 years, apart from the tree of life, for them to finally expire. i'm not a skeptic. i'm someone who has read it. closely. and studied it. partly in the original hebrew. i'm not convinced that you have done the first part of that, nevermind the last. your post above shows a comprehension of the text that is extremely wanting -- that of someone who has heard their pastor speak about the text, but hasn't particularly read it very closely themselves. your post reeks of doctrine that flatly contradicts what the text says. in other words, you're the skeptic. i'm just going by what it says. ask a jew. they live among you. it's their book, in their language. maybe they know what they're talking about.frankly, it's not even against the majority of christian theologians. it's against the majority of uneducated pastors you hear saying dumb things from the pulpit, in attempts to bring in more attendance and thus more tithes. it's against the majority of christian charlatans that you are most likely to come in contact with. however, if you actually go into the academic literature, the stuff written by the people we actually call "theologians", and professors of divinity, i think you'll find they mostly bear my point out. and the vast majority of jewish scholars of any walk will as well. the fact of the matter is that the people you are consulting are not experts. they are professional motivational speakers at best, and cult leaders at worst. and all of them pervert and abuse a text i love. agreed, and this is precisely what i've done. i'm not sure why you think i have done anything else. please keep in mind that in that other thread, i am debating with a crank, who continually brings red herrings into the argument, and debates every similar example in the most truly ludicrous and idiotic way possible, all while generally misunderstanding the argument and even his own sources.but no, my argument is based rather strictly on grammatical context, and the syntax of other comparable verses, and indeed the context of the rest of the chapter. there is quite purposefully nothing about interpretation in that thread, except that if a proper reading rules out certain interpretations, so be it. interpretation must be built on top of what the text says, and is not a consideration in determining what that text says. i make no such assumption, and in fact, am more than happy to point out contradictions where i see them. and in fact, most of the comparisons i have made have been rather explicitly across different authors. for instance, i am arguing that genesis 1:1,

quote:

---

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים

---

mirrors genesis 2:4b,

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים

---

and genesis 5:1,

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים

---

5:1 and 1:1 were possibly written by the same author, and are generally included in the P document. there's some debate about this, of course, because both P and R are very nebulous sources. but 2:4b is from the J document (the name of god there is a dead give away in genesis). completely different author. the argument is not that the author uses the same style, but that this is a common function of biblical hebrew stylistics. of course, i can't even get that far with ICANT, who struggles at reading, and can't accept that this source actually say that two out of the three of those are infinitives.but the argument in the OP of that thread does indeed point out (in a commentary by orlinsky) how the temporal translation would mirror the commonly (academically) accepted temporal translations of 2:4b. ...isn't that what this thread is about? lambs are not people. and imagery is imagery.Edited by arachnophilia, : chose a different translation

---

אָרַח