Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

doesn't follow.if A then B ≠ if B then A.eg: "if i go to church, i will be busy on sunday." i was busy on sunday. did i go to church? no, not necessarily. maybe i was busy doing something else.so in the above instance, sin entailing death does not mean the sin is the only condition that causes death.

that wouldn't really make any sense, no. the thing is, the only rational way to look at the texts is using the words on the page; what the authors said. you have to view them as products of their authors, and not apply magical thinking to them about coded messages inserted by some other force. it's easy enough to apply that kind of thinking to other texts, and come out with erroneous conclusions. sure, but note that it never regards these ideas as separate. when it's used to mean "cut off from life", it means physical death. only by creationists, who want to try and justify an idea about the text being literally written by its main characters. there's absolutely nothing to substantiate this, it goes against even the unsubstantiated orthodox traditions regarding mosaic authorship, and there's a whole lot of anachronisms that indicate it must be false. note the description in genesis 2:

quote:

---

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

---

the author is giving landmarks for the location of eden, and he (or she) is using countries that are contemporary to the reader.mainstream academia regards genesis 1, part of the P document, an even newer addition. partly, i would suggest, because it shows signs of using J (which contains genesis 2 through 4) as source material. i was just explaining why it was slightly different. the psalm is in hebrew, but jesus's dying words are aramaic transliterated into greek.

well, no, because it never existed as the sum of its parts until well after it was written. and even if you try to read it that way, there are plenty of parts missing. there are something like two dozen books that biblical authors refer to that are not included in the bible, and many of those aren't known about any other way.many of those parts specifically and intentionally conflict with other parts. for instance, job was written to argue against the premises of the major prophets, the notion that god was just. you can do that, but you have to realize that the NT christian perspective did not exist until the NT christian authors wrote it. it is totally foreign to genesis, separated by perhaps as much as 1,000 years. it does not represent the views of the people who wrote the torah, any more than job represents the views of jeremiah. further, the contextual information from the rest of the torah may even make the NT readings an untenable interpretation. i'm aware of that, but paul is speaking in a metaphysical sense that simply did not exist when genesis was written. this is sort of like saying shakespeare didn't understand the significance of his writing in relation to west side story or lion king. you've got the cart before the horse.

as i wrote above, this is not a rational way to treat any source. if the bible functions to tell me about god, why must i begin with what it teaches? shouldn't i be able to approach the text from a neutral standpoint?further, if it is god's word, even an academic, critical viewpoint should reveal that. you claim my idea of god is small, but it's your idea of god that demands i not scrutinize it, because apparently he disappears if you actually try to look for him. this is demonstrably not the case. not only are there multiple different canons, but there are books that the biblical authors seem to have accepted as authoritative that are no longer canon. as i mentioned above.

quote:

---

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14-15)

---

quote:

---

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. (Enoch 1:9)

---

jude thought it was canon. you don't think it raises questions that non-canonical books are quoted in the canonical books? it's not a matter of belief. one model explains the peculiarities that are factually present in the text. the other model denies they even exist. one mode is rational, and is useful for making the text make sense. the other mode glosses over details for dogmatic reasons.

quote:

---

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: 'My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job hath. Now therefore, take unto you seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you; for him will I accept, that I do not unto you aught unseemly; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.' (Job 42:7,8)

---

these are the last words that yahweh speaks in job. he is refuting the claims of job's friends (who are, of course, modeled on the major prophets). the things they said, not speaking rightly, were:

quote:

---

Doth God pervert judgment? Or doth the Almighty pervert justice? (Job 8:3)

---

so... i don't know what book you're reading. does your bible say something different? dating is perhaps a topic for another time. but note that, in a previous message, i described exactly how the bible treats prophecy: as a hypothesis to be tested. and that the prophets who claim to speak for yahweh, but have untrue prophecies, do not speak for yahweh. and those that claim to speak for yahweh but then ask you to follow anything except yahweh are to be killed.do you think the biblical prophets somehow got a pass from this commandment? because i'm pretty sure that's about the biblical prophets. this is sort of amusing because just the other day i was in a debate on another forum with modern jews, specifically on the topic of how biblical judaism tells us very little about modern judaism. i, of course, was making an argument based on, get this, the bible. so no, i am not here influenced by modern judaism. i'm influenced by the perspective of the people who wrote the torah. job fits in with jeremiah the way my argument fits with yours. is your bible bound in reverse order? i mean, granted, i have at least one where it appears to start at the back in comparison to normal books, but that's because it's half in hebrew. okay. if god is a lot bigger than the time period between genesis and paul, why don't we see paul's metaphysics evident within the text of genesis?i feel like this is a pretty straightforward proposition. you're proposing that something is there based on belief that it should be there, not based on any evidence that actually is. if your argument is right, it should be there. it's not. so, you're wrong, QED. indeed, and note the part i quoted in that previous message was the test of the prophet to come. though, contextually, this was almost certainly jesus's original namesake, joshua. but it applies to every subsequent prophet, real or false.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

then those christian denominations are ignorant or lying. because it's pretty trivial to demonstrate that the canonical books refer to extra-canonical books, and even quote them. i gave an example in the above post, where jude quotes enoch, and even says he's quoting enoch. sure it does: there's a part missing from genesis.genesis 1 is a re-write of the J creation account, including genesis 2-4. it seems to have been meant to replace it entirely. in it, woman and man are created simultaneously, god never declares anything as "not good", and god does not lie/go back on his word/take mercy/whatever. you can cut out genesis 2-4 entirely (after verse 3, where the P sections end) and read genesis 1:1-2:3, 5:1-onwards continuously and still have the story make sense. those chapters were supposed to be missing, due to highly heretical content.but what did J look like before? J begins with an already created heaven and earth. the P account, which summarizes and reduces the J, only overlaps J slightly, on the topic of the creation of man and woman. what J covers in three chapter, P covers in one verse. we are probably looking at similar J stories missing describing the major events found in genesis 1.we know of at least one: leviathan. other creation accounts in the bible (including job, and psalm 74) include references to yahweh's defeat of leviathan, during the creation of the world. this is identical to the narrative of baal hadad slaying yam (lotan) in canaan, and marduk slaying tiamat in akkadia. these other biblical references are all drawing on a definitive hebrew source, and not adapting the myth from other cultures, and J, the author of genesis 2-4, is the best guess at where this content came from.do you still think missing biblical text is irrelevant to the discussion of genesis? this is not my premise; it is my conclusion. i do not start with any belief about who or what wrote the bible, and only draw those conclusions from the text, comparative texts, historical and archaeological knowledge relating to the contents of the text. this is exactly how you should approach anything, i think. it is certainly a more rational approach than beginning with an inherent bias, and then seeking to confirm that bias. if god is the author of the bible, then that conclusion should be able to be demonstrated from the text without assuming it to begin with. that's fine, but that position should be able to be demonstrated from the text, rather than using that position as a way to demonstrate things about the text which demonstrate that position. that is question-begging.

faith is talking about this:

quote:

---

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:18-22)

---

note that this advises you to be skeptical of any prophet that claims to speak for yahweh, and if that prophet gives you false prophecies or tells you to worship another god, he's to be executed. it doesn't say "just automatically believe, because anyone who claims to speak for me has my permission."

the question is, if the biblical authors thought these sources were credible enough to refer the reader to or to quote, and the people who canonized the biblical sources thought the biblical authors were credible, why didn't they also think the biblical authors were credible in considering these other sources credible? it's true that we don't exactly what was in the content that's missing. but we do know some of that content:

quote:

---

Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength;
Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters.
Thou didst crush the heads of leviathan,
Thou gavest him to be food to the folk inhabiting the wilderness.
Thou didst cleave fountain and brook;
Thou driedst up ever-flowing rivers.
Thine is the day, Thine also the night;
Thou hast established luminary and sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth;
Thou hast made summer and winter.

​

(Psalm 74:13-17)

---

if we know that this story, where yahweh kills leviathan, is missing from genesis, and that J (the author the eden narrative) is the only source likely to have included it, and that this story would have come before eden contextually... then we know that there was death before the man and woman's transgression. no. but it can help. i've also seen unbelievers approach the text with their own biases; the point is that you should be able to read it without an bias. if it matches your belief, fine. but you shouldn't have to start with the belief to get to the belief. i'm saying that the NT interpretation does not accurately represent the text it is interpreting. eg: there had to have been death before adam, the wages of sin are not necessarily death, etc. i'm not totally sure your interpretation matches the NT (which doesn't support original sin in the modern conception, for instance) but that perhaps is a topic for later. if the connection isn't there, then it isn't there. it has to go both ways; otherwise one is just reinterpreting the other. well, no. it's stated once or twice in the new testament that god "inspired" scripture. and it's questionable what the author even meant by that. OT books, on the other hand, tend to have either traditional attributions (eg: "the books of moses") claimed in other books, or internal claims likely inserted by editors (eg: "a psalm of david"). rarely to they claim authorship themselves, within the original source text, but even when they do, those attributions are always human. nowhere does any text in the OT ever claim to have been written by yahweh. the closest you get is the tablet containing the commandments, the actual law itself, which is included in the torah.but that's all actually irrelevant to the point. whether or not the text even claims to be written by a god (and in this case it doesn't), the validity of the claim should be apparent from reading and studying the text. i agree; it shouldn't be a matter of personal belief.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

this one?

quote:

---

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

---

though jesus blesses those who don't need evidence, he seems to have little problem actually providing that evidence so that skeptics may believe too. i feel like we should look at another example, to see why this is a bad argument. have you read the book of mormon? it too is designed to defeat the inquiries of mere intellect, while illuminating those of faith. that is to say, all objective evidence points it being wholly the work founders of mormon church, mostly joseph smith, derivative of several other works known to be smith's library, and bearing no relation what little of the source texts are known. modern literary criticism and archaeology have revealed the text to have been invented more or less out of whole cloth. and yet, it enriches the lives of the faithful members of the church of latter day saints. and yet, even the book of mormon includes a similar test to the one i gave above:

quote:

---

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:4-5)

---

if you approach this text from the attitude of faith, what do you find? have you read the book of mormon, and asked the holy spirit whether or not it is true? why or why not? does the factual and historical evidence get in the way? again, this is not necessarily the case. critical examination of the bible need not fragment and destroy faith; not if it is true. and yet, it is their arguments that are predicated on the teachings of the major prophets: that yahweh is just, so if job (that is judah) is being punished (or exiled), he must have done something to deserve it. you can see this all throughout jeremiah, who has yahweh speaking evil to judah for crimes she must have committed. job is clearly saying that jeremiah is wrong; that he does not speak for yahweh. that yahweh is not necessarily just. if that's blasphemy, that's job's author's blasphemy, not mine.my "method" is simple: read the words on the page, instead of making things up. if that's destructive, that's the fault of the words on the page. it's a consequence of what the bible says. this may come as a surprise to you, but i became interested in the bible because it spoke to me. study of the bible itself is one of the things that has driven me away from faith. so, no, i reject your premise entirely.

how are we to tell the difference?because, as far as i can tell, that verse gives a mostly objective test. it tells you how do decided who is a false prophet: do they prophesy things that do not follow, and do they ask you follow anyone except yahweh? a yes to either means the prophet it false.if you are rejecting this biblical test for prophecy, what standard are you using? if we're not to believe everything, how do we know what to believe and what not to believe? actually, jesus seems to fail both prongs of the test, as both an object of worship himself (he is not yahweh, and no, saying that he is does not mean that he is any more than the golden calf was yahweh) and for prophesying things that did not come true. this is perhaps why he was always careful, at least in the synoptic gospels, to not identify himself as a god. and it's also probably the reason he was killed.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

and yet thomas is not faulted for not believing the witnesses. rather, he is given evidence when he asks for it. this is a far cry from discouraging questioning. correct: evidence points to the book of mormon being largely the work of a single author.

the bible treats truth as objective, and able to be verified outside of the bible. do prophets ever present themselves as false? of course you have to choose between prophets who present themselves, or are presented by others as true. the point of the verse i gave you was to establish a metric for determining the truth value of the prophets: they are to be judged, in part, on the veracity of their prophecies.but let me ask you this: who do you think this verse is talking about, exactly? traditional reading as it being about joshua (he is, after all, the very next prophet), but earlier you seemed to indicate that you thought it was about jesus. wouldn't it then explicitly mean we are to question jesus? why? because you accept based on authority what someone else has chosen to be part of your bible? remember, the golden calf was presented to israel by aaron, the next highest authority in the group after moses.