The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual

I saw kowalskil trying to begin a discussion with his Can science and religion coexist peacefully? . It didn't look like it would get rolling there, but it got me rolling, so, here goes...Let me first state plainly my beliefs regarding this issue:

1. The spiritual created the natural, and thus, the natural is grounded in the spiritual.
2. The spiritual and the natural are not in contradiction with one another.
3. The spiritual is the source of the natural.
4. The spiritual governs the natural.
5. The natural has been corrupted.

For Bahnsen haters, I will concede here that I will speaking very presuppositionally in this message. In this case of creating a false dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual, I find no better place to begin with my presuppositions than Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."Assuming that God is indeed a spiritual entity (which is a reasonable assumption given the language of the rest of the Bible) we have here no insignificant statement: the writer ascertains that a spiritual entity created all the material that exists. Thus, a unique bond exists between the two, as ascertained by the Bible.Now lets go back to Plato to find where the beginning of this false dichotomy began (or at least was continued). Plato with his philosophy of forms fostered a hate for the natural, for the natural was merely the representation of a form. The form could only be understood spiritually (in the mind), and thus the mind, not the body, was the ultimate definer (or, creator), ruler, and savior of the physical world, for only in the mind could the world be understood. Thus, Platonian thought (specifically, dual-Platonian thought) fostered a disregard and disdain for the natural, and an exaltation and deification of the mind of man. Moreover, it creates a sharp dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual.This school of thought combines with empiricism and moral relativism to create the widespread view of religion and science that we now have today. This view creates two mutually exclusive spheres of truth: the truth of the spiritual world, and the truth of the natural world. These worlds and their truths do not interact, and exist both equally true and completely unrelated. Moral relativism then seeks to make these two worlds co-exist peacefully.But the truth of the matter is that this is impossible. This world must have some sort of ultimate source. The source must be natural or spiritual. If the source is natural, then the spiritual is strictly a product of the mind of man, and thus exists only in the abstract, thus rendering it irrelevant and ineffectual. If, on the other hand, the source is spiritual, the natural is strictly a product of the spiritual, thus rendering the spiritual and natural equally relevant and deeply connected.The effects of such a belief are readily apparent in law, science, the arts, education, etc. In law, if one believes the natural is the source of the spiritual, their law will necessarily be naturalistic, and will have a greater regard for case law than for principial (prin-ci-pi-al) law. However, if one believes the spiritual to be the source of the natural, their law will be principially based, and will use case law not as a source of truth but only as a proper interpretation of the principial law which is the wellspring of truth.To demonstrate specifically what I am getting at, lets examine a particular example in law. Consider trying to build a building in the United States. Granted, I have little understanding of all that would be involved in this, but it would certainly be a painstaking process of obtaining permits and licenses and having certain inspections and adhering to all the hundreds of regulations there are for construction of a building, and so on and so on. These regulations are in a sense case law, and being as there are so many of them, it is very difficult to adhere to them all perfectly and, if done, it will have been done only with a great amount of pain. The only means of obedience in this case is to follow strictly the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. But consider what the Bible has to say about building regulations: "When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it." (Deut. 22:8). The Bible being a principially based book (meaning that it is grounded in the spiritual, not the natural), this law is grounded in the broad principle of protection of life, and thus requires not only that a person build parapets on their rooftop, but that they take measures necessary to make life on their property reasonably safe....So, this post got a little bit long, and may be a bit too broad, so let me present the points for possible discussion:

• To the theist, such as kowalskil, what is the relation, if any, between the natural and the spiritual, and between science and theology? Are they divorced from one another, existing mutually exclusive of one another?
• To the atheist, what evidences are there in favor of a naturally grounded world as opposed to a spiritually grounded world (speaking in the philosophical sense)?

Let me state once more with regard to the theist that I believe firmly that spiritual and natural realities exist interconnected, and that theology cannot be divorced from science, and neither can the naturalistic scientist coexist peacefully with the pietistic theologian.And let me state finally with regard to the atheist that I believe strongly that the world is grounded in the ultimate spiritual reality of Jehovah God, and that a naturalistic world is unreasonable and impossible.Having stated broadly my beliefs, hopefully some discussion can get going on one of the controversial claims I made. I see no place for this but Faith and Belief. Unless, that is, some theist wants to pick it up as a Great Debate.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature content to smaller font. I had edited it to the "1" size at the sac51495 profile page.

---

"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

After re-reading my post, it doesn't really appear to be adequate for a Great Debate. So let me just say that I have a whole lot more I could say about this issue. I have a feeling that others do too. Maybe for this reason it could be a Great Debate, that is, of course, if anyone wishes to pick it up. I don't know if Buzsaw agrees with me or not. I know that kowalskil doesn't. jar probably disagrees with me too much to have a reasonable discussion. RAZD, or anyone else out there want to pick this up?...

Any admins out there? I saw Buzsaw's topic get accepted a day ago, and I also noticed that my first message didn't get posted on the "list all topics" page. Has anyone read it yet?

I agree that it is perhaps some writing deficiency on my part. Let me lay it out clearly, first pointing out that I referenced kowalskil's proposed topic on trying to make theology and science coexist peacefully. I read the articles he posted, but since I have no intention of referencing outside material in trying to get discussions started, I tried to get a discussion started by stating my own views which were contrary to the views laid out by kowalskil in his article. With that said, here's a list of what some views are of the relation between the natural and the spiritual: [list=1,R]

Only the spiritual truly exists, while the natural is merely an illusion.

The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the spiritual being the source, ruler, and savior of both the spiritual and the natural.

The spiritual and the natural exist mutually exclusive, but both equally true, and exist unrelated and uninteracting, and perhaps contradictory.

The spiritual and the natural exist both equally true, with the natural being the source, ruler, and savior of both the natural and the spiritual.

Only the natural truly exists, while the spiritual is only a figment of the imagination of man.
[/list=1,R]
The 1st is exemplified by Hinduism, and is probably not a view ascribed to by anyone on this forum. It is also somewhat Platonistic.

​

The 2nd I believe to be the only one that can possibly be true. It is a view that few living in modern day secularist society ascribe to.

​

The 3rd is held by kowalskil, and quite a number of theists.

​

The 4th is held by some on this forum, probably jar, and other such semi-agnostic theists.

​

The 5th is held by clear-cut atheists, such as Dr. A, of which there are many on this forum.

​

The five points I made in my OP were somewhat redundant, and were all general elaborations of point #2 in this post. To elaborate a little more, by spiritual I mean unequivocally Jehovah God, and by natural I mean all things created by Him, as asserted in Genesis 1 and 2. The natural has been corrupted, as asserted by Genesis 3, so that the world we see around us does not exist in a perfect state, and is thus not an ultimate source of truth. The heart and mind of man are included then in that class of things corrupted. They both then have a fundamental inability to discern properly what they see around them, and are in desperate need of a savior to be justified before their sovereign Creator. The standard which men must attain to be justified before God is shown in the Law of God. Perfect obedience to this Law being impossible, however, the punishment for sin (sin being disobedience to the Law) must be satisfied. This punishment is satisfied in the death of Christ, who not only satisfied the punishment for our sin by His death, but also renewed our hearts by His resurrection.

​

Once again, the discussion is hoped to be generated with a), those theists who ascribe to beliefs #3 or #4, or b), those atheists who ascribe to belief #5.

​

As to the relation of religion and spirituality:

​

Religion is not connected directly with spirituality. All people have a religion. Naturalism is the religion of some (or, more specifically, Envrionmentalism). The religion of a person determines how they view the world around them, and how they behave in the world around them, and what they produce in the world around them. Thus, the writings, actions, and cultural products (such as art, music, law, etc.) of a society are representative of the religious beliefs of that society. A spiritual society may, for example, sacrifice children on altars to appease the wrath of their gods. A naturalistic society may, for example, sacrifice children on the altar of radical environmentalism to appease the wrath of the environment. Yes, they do, and will. I have read quotes from environmentalists who propose abortion and birth control as the means of appeasing the environment, for the environment is being overpopulated by us humans, and we have to lower our birth rates to keep from over-stressing it. Such environmentalists claim to have grounded such beliefs in science. I hold then that science is an invalid way of determining ultimate truth, seeing that it results in such child-sacrificing environmentalists as these. Keeping in mind, or course, that this is just one example.

​

So, on the one hand, we have a man who believes that a spiritual being exists sovereign over the universe, and who also believes that this spiritual being requires in certain cases that he sacrifice his children to appease his wrath.

​

And on the other hand, we have a man who believes that the environment is sovereign over all (all meaning, in this case, the earth), and who also believes that this environment requires in certain cases (this particular case being one of overpopulation) that he sacrifice his children to appease its wrath.

​

So then, just as the beliefs of the former are labeled his "religion", so also are the beliefs of the latter his "religion".

​

Simply defined then, religion is the metaphysical beliefs held by a man, beliefs which influence his view of knowledge and of morality, and to which he pays homage in the form of institutionalized worship. Theism's institutionalized worship is of a god, while humanism's institutionalized worship is of man.

​

So, yes, the concepts of religion and spirituality are different from one another. Religion can involve a belief in the spiritual, but not necessarily, seeing as how naturalism is also a religion. Also, I believe that many person's view of spirituality is perverted, it being limited to a man sitting on a cloud in heaven (whatever that is). I believe no such thing. My God is incomprehensibly greater than that.

​

Hopefully you understood it that time, and hopefully you can see how this can generate discussion. Maybe I wrote it down a bit better this time! (?)

​

Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

​

---

"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

Coyote,Sorry for the delay in responding.Coyote, I guess, from this, I could say that you believe that beliefs get in the way. Thus, you hold the self-contradictory belief that beliefs get in the way! And lest you object and say that this belief is an empirically-based belief (thus validating it), I would point out that you must first hold the belief that beliefs [I]can[i/] be empirically validated! Regarding your statement about religious beliefs, I point you to my definition of religion: the metaphysical beliefs held by a man, beliefs which influence his view of knowledge and of morality, and to which he pays homage in the form of institutionalized worship.And by institutionalized worship, I do not necessarily mean congregating in a church building and singing. Nor do I necessarily mean bowing your physical body down in front of a physical altar. Worship is nothing more than adoration. Aristotelian society adores the mind of man, and institutionalizes its adoration by devoting their entire being to constantly validating and invalidating empirical claims: that is, to adore the mind of man by action.

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

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

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