The First Questions In The Bible

Phat, I think the most you can say for the text is that the succession of xian-ish religions have been based on the concept of duality, so therefore the first recorded story has to incorporate the 'creating' of the duality.It is not particularly telling IMO that the snake asks the first question, and I don't see how any of it really talks about questioning God. It's just that, in order to explain how humans came to have 'choices', both elements of the choice have to be included. First, God commands, second, snake intervenes.If anything, I could say that the story proves we already had the capability to question God. It does not tell us that we should, only that we can. We were created with free will. We were created with the ability to question. God certainly allows it. We were warned in Genesis that not all choices are equal.As you know, when we talk nowadays about questioning God, we mean something more like Question What You Think Is God. In the Genesis story, it was shown that disobeying what you find worthy can have consequences. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Of course, arach, not all of us take Genesis literally. Since you will probably do it anyway, how's about a good breakdown in Hebrew about the 'kind' of death we must 'surely die'? Nothing, necessariy. It may be intended to say someting about us.

Perhaps God didn't mean to kill anyone?He certainly didn't trade in one punishment for another. He banished Adam and Eve as a preventive measure, not a punishment. Even so, to extract any literal meaning or significance from the Bible in our day, a literal death does not cut it. Supposing you believe in the Bible, and believe that the Tree of Life is a symbol of something 'real', then unless we know what that something is, we can't discover the kind of death or impact it will have on us when we 'eat' from it.

Banishment leads to eventual death? I am still not inclined to see the banishment as a punishment, just a necessary precaution. Well, what DID the authors mean? The thing which strikes me about Genesis is that it is so 'sensible' in some ways, telling just-so stories and providing mythical origins for simple concepts like why we wear clothes or how we got here...and then in the middle of that there is this strange 'Tree of Life' that seemingly has no parallel in the 'real' world or no bearing on the rest of the tale of 'how things got here'. I have no need to find some truth. Although it is not better at all in the eyes of others, I simply have a belief that there is some truth to find, rather than a need to find it. That does not render me incapable of examining the original intent, but it is the same with all myths to me. There is some kernel of truth in them, some reflection of the perceptions of life at the time. I do not know what the Tree of Life represented then, in fact I don't know what the Knowledge of Good and Evil meant then either. It may not be complex symbology, but it is symbology nonetheless, which is still clouded in the mists of time. The difference in outlook can be explained not so much as inspired/not inspired, but as meaningful/dead. I don't find Genesis meaningful as 'the only recorded and true history of the origins of life', hell no, but as a Christian I believe it contains important symbology at least so far as origins of our faith.That being said, if a book WAS inspired, then dang all of the authors' intent. What kind of death was God talking about?

I am familiar with the traditional take on the tale. For myself, I lean towards the spiritual death scenerio when I think about this scripture. I don't know that it says anything about immortality.What tends to provoke my comment in otherwise played out topics, is the continual 'God is a liar' claim from people who say they only want to read the books as ancient stories. If that is true, then the story is pretty clear about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, even tho the story sure portrays God as lying, or at least wrong compared to the serpent. In pure story telling, it's an inconsistancy, a loose end.You have to assume that these people were lousy at telling stories, not detail oriented, copied wrong, remembered wrong, something of that nature. OR they were not concerned with the 'honesty' of God, but moreso with His power.'God lied' is not the intent of the story, IMO. So one can either take the whole thing with a grain of salt and realize we will never know the 'true, original' intent based on some manuscripts from centuries later, or we can act on blind faith all around about the providential preservation of something important.

Perhaps you misunderstood where I was coming from. I was referring to the common assumption that was part of my catechism, and which says Adam and Eve were created with immortality, subsequently losing it when they ate of the Tree.I concur that there is no mention of spiritual death, but I am somewhere in the middle of word for word literalism, and bland Bible study without exegesis.

Probably not something I learned from church or school catechism, but yes, I did for a long time hear that Adam and Eve were 'perfect', never got sick, never had pain, never would have died, until after the Fall.

Shooting oneself in the foot while trying to save a toe.Obviously an attempt to take 'you shall surely die' literally. Maybe God is not a liar in the story because the Tree of Life was still available to Adam and Eve before they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, so they have the possibility of immortality versus the assurance of death if they were banished?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.