The False Dichotomy of Natural and Spiritual

so, i'm currently involved in a thread nearing 300 message on how to read that verse. not even interpret it, but how to read it. you might be surprised to know that it's not really as simple as you suspect, and that your interpretation of it here is based on quite a few more presuppositions than you would even imagine. for instance, the assumption that god (and heaven) are "spiritual". even your particular view that attempts to unify the two basically assumes a dichotomy that would have been completely foreign and anachronistic to the hebrew authors of the bible.the "spirit" they describe is very simply life. it's the bit that makes the physical being alive. god, as described further on in the torah, is actually a physical being. strange, i know. but true -- he shows up physically throughout the book of exodus.further, "heaven" as described in genesis, is a physical place. idiomatically, it refers to the sky -- the bit where the clouds are -- but the literal description in genesis 1 is of a solid object that keeps out water. when god opens windows in it in genesis 6, the earth floods.i say that you are perpetuating this dichotomy because the ancient hebrews would have denied that there was any difference between the physical and spiritual. they didn't believe in the afterlife, for instance. you died, and you were laid to rest with your ancestors in a literal grave, sheol. or "hell". sure. the law was never about loopholes and regulations and condemnation, as many christians (coughcoughpaul) tend to portray it. rather, it is a set of ideological guidelines that one adheres to out of duty and respect and love. the physical restrictions are a way to represent (and shape) the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual concerns. the jews view the law as a blessing. to the person who believes the bible, there shouldn't be any meaningful difference. i think the interaction of science and theology is a whole separate topic. ...the naturally-grounded world that is easily observed.as i mentioned above, the bible does indeed describe a naturally-grounded world, and makes zero distinction between nature and spirit. this whole concept was just unheard of at the time. the problem comes about when the naturally-grounded world that we easily observe doesn't match the natural world as described in the bible. for instance, when we notice that the earth isn't flat, there isn't a solid barrier just outside the clouds, and we aren't surrounded by water in the sky. this is when the theists start retreating to this faulty nature/spirit dichotomy, and appeal to metaphors that just were never intended by the authors of the bible.it's far simpler to just accept that the bible is wrong. also, god said to tell you that you're spelling his name wrong. apparently, he's pretty picky about that kind of thing.

---

אָרַח

what do you suppose existed outside of eden? corrupted by what? the other things god created? now i'm really confused. or rather, they were. this was, in fact, how god created man in the first place. it wasn't until they ate from the tree of knowledge that their eyes were opened... and they could discern good from evil. it's interesting that this is the corruption, and not the reverse. nope. this is just a poor reading of the law. i know that section of the bible can be pretty boring, and is perhaps second only to the "begats" in that regard. but your ideas about the law (coughcoughpaul) are totally baseless.the law is not a standard man must measure up to. it just isn't. rather, it's a way to address grievances in a fair and unbiased (and agreed upon) manner, and a method of absolving sin. that last part is probably important. further, the absolution of sin really has nothing to do with god -- god is a loving and forgiving god, as long as you don't break that first commandment. he forgives, and looks after his children. though we can find this message in the old testament as well, this is precisely the message that christ taught during his ministry. rather, the sin is absolved from the conscience of the sinner.you see, the jews view the law as a blessing, not a curse. it is a way for them to prove their loyalty and faith to their god, not a way for their god exclude them from heaven. and certainly, the wages of sin are not death.further, there are quite a few examples of men in the bible -- before christ -- who are considered "just" in the eyes of god. a few of them, like king david, even after sinning. as i said, god is forgiving. human sacrifice is abhorrent to god. and no man shall be put to death for another's crime -- that would not be just, nor would it fulfill the law.

---

אָרַח

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

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

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