|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adam & Eve to be blamed, or god! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
portmaster1000 writes:
quote: Yes, he is. "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God is not talking about metaphorical, king's age days. He's using crystal clear terminology as would be understood by anybody speaking Hebrew: Before the sun set, you'd be dead. A physical death, not a spiritual death.
quote: That simply compounds the problem: With Adam and Eve being innocent, why would they follow the commandment to obey commandments?
quote: Not according to the text but even so, it doesn't help: How can Adam and Eve understand what that means when they do not understand good and evil, right and wrong?
quote: Apparently. What do you think "innocent" means? We already know that they're sinning their butts off since they're running around naked and are not ashamed. In fact, the very first thing they panic over after eating the fruit is the fact that they're naked. One would think that the very first thing would be the fact that they just broke the only commandment they were ever given but instead, the problem is that they aren't wearing clothes. They hide from god not because they disobeyed but because they aren't wearing clothes. Given the fact that at least Adam had seen god directly and god certainly wouldn't sin by being naked, Adam has at least experienced the distinction between being clothed and not being clothed and he doesn't understand the importance of this distinction until after he eats from the tree. So even if Adam was told directly to obey god, what good would it do? He's innocent and doesn't understand what "obedience" means. Wouldn't he have already clothed himself to emultate god? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
fnord writes:
quote: Says who? Nowhere in the Bible is it ever mentioned that the serpent in the garden was Satan. In fact, at the time Genesis was written, there was no concept of "Satan" anywhere in Judaism. The serpent in the garden wasn't connected with anything supernatural. It was simply a smart animal. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
entwine responds to me:
quote: In the end, we'll never know. Genesis was written not by Moses (who wasn't there to witness things, at any rate, and came after the dissolution of languages from the Tower of Babel) but rather was transcribed from a long oral tradition. And even if we make the extreme claim that somehow Hebrew is the original language, we don't have an original copy of Genesis...we only have ones that were transcribed much, much later, edited and altered by who knows how many people (take a look at the discrepancies between the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls.) The story as we have received it, however, is quite clear: Eat from the Tree of Knowledge and before the sun sets, you will be physically dead.
quote: Alas, the Bible doesn't say. Eve certainly wasn't astonished by this event, but perhaps she didn't have any expectations that snakes shouldn't talk.
quote: The former we can't really analyze. The latter, well, she was innocent and didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Why would she be concerned over contradiction? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: And let's not forget, the serpent is not the only talking animal in the Bible. Long after the garden incident, a biblical character finds his ass is talking to him (please, please, let's not go there): Numbers 22:28: And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 22:29: And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 22:30: And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. Balaam didn't freak out, either. Maybe that's why animals don't talk to us today...they know we'll go nutso. Kids seem to think they talk and perhaps that's whom the animals talk to: Those who can handle the idea of a talking dog. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Arachnophilia writes:
quote: Indeed, which is indication that the serpent was an animal, not Satan, especially when you look at the curse given and how it applies not only to Adam, Eve, and the serpent but to all the generations yet to come: Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis is clearly treating the serpent as an animal, not a supernatural being.
quote: No, all they had to do was eat from the tree of life. In fact, that's why god panics and kicks them out of Eden: The only thing separating humans from god is immortality. Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. And note that because god puts an angel to guard the entrance, it means that this is a physical place somewhere on earth and if we were to be able to get past the angel, we could re-enter Eden, find the tree of life, eat from it, and live forever. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Arachnophilia writes:
quote: Except that even the Revelation quote isn't a correlation between Satan and the serpent from Eden. You are simply saying that because Revelation calls Satan "that old serpent," that means that it's Eden's serpent. But there's a problem: Satan in Revelation is a dragon. So obviously calling him a "serpent" makes sense. It is not a reference to Genesis.
quote: Yes, but like so much of what it is we think we understand about the Bible, it's wrong. The serpent wasn't Satan. How could it be since it's a Jewish story and at the time it was written, there was no concept of the devil in Judaism? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
portmaster1000 responds to me:
quote:quote: According to Genesis, yes: Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? But just because the serpent is smart does not make him evil or wicked.
quote: Dunno. The Bible doesn't say.
quote: What makes you think the serpent "tempted" anybody? Why would the serpent fear god for simply telling the truth? It's not like the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. He simply pointed out that the consequence of eating from the tree of knowledge was knowledge, not death.
quote: You're assuming the serpent coerced somebody. Show me where the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. Chapter and verse, please. Perhaps the serpent had eaten from the tree of knowledge, understood good and evil, and knew that a good being would never punish an innocent for making a mistake that he couldn't possibly avoid. Again, the serpent doesn't tell Eve to eat from the tree, but he is confident that telling the truth about the tree will not cause any problems for a good being would never do what god actually does upon finding out.
quote: Perhaps. Remember that at the time Genesis was written, there was no concept of the devil. Therefore, the confusion of the serpent with the devil is a later imposition upon the text and is not to be found anywhere within it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 responds to me:
quote:quote: Your forgetting the other part: In the day. That has a very specific meaning: That very day. Not tomorrow, not hundreds of years hence, not the beginning of something that will take eons to achieve...that very day before the sun sets. The implication is quite clear: Physical death before the sun sets.
quote:quote: That's because you understand what a commandment is. It isn't nearly simple to someone who doesn't understand what a commandment is. Adam was not told, "Don't do this because I don't want you to." He was told, "Don't do this because you will die." The former requires understanding of good and evil, which Adam did not have since he hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Therefore, why would Adam follow a commandment when he doesn't know what a commandment is?
quote:quote: But how is that in any way meaningful to someone that doesn't understand consequences? Obviously Adam and Eve could have not eaten from the tree. They obviously had existed for some time without having eaten from it. But that isn't a choice. A choice can only mean something when one understands the consequences of that choice. Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One will grant you everlasting bliss while the other will send you to eternal agony. Which one is it? Come on, now, choose! You're an adult. You're not stupid. Which one is it? Make your choice!
quote: No, they did not! Where on earth did god explain the consequences? He lied to them! He told them in no uncertain terms that if they were to eat of the tree of life, they would be physically dead before the sun set. The serpent pointed out that that wasn't true. Instead, they would become as gods, knowing good and evil. And when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they didn't die. They became as gods, knowing good and evil. How can you understand consequences when you don't understand good and evil? God did not tell them, "Do not eat of the tree for I do not wish you to and to disobey me is a sin which is evil." And even if he did, what on earth does that mean to someone who doesn't understand what "evil" is? Please explain "red" to a blind person.
quote:quote: Nothing. You have read the Bible, have you not? Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. The very first thing that Adam and Eve panic over after they eat from the tree of knowledge and become as gods is not the fact that they just disobeyed the only commandment they had ever been given. It's the fact that they're naked: Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And when god comes looking for them (and why does god need to look for them?) and asks them why they are hiding, it isn't because they are ashamed for having disobeyed but rather because they are naked: Genesis 3:10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Therefore, Genesis points out that running around without clothes is a sin and yet, Adam and Eve get a pass from this sin (graver than disobeying god, it would seem) because they are innocent and don't know any better. So why all the fuss over the other sin? They don't know any better. They're not stupid. They're simply innocent. They don't understand right and wrong. What on earth is god doing putting the tree of knowledge in Eden where Adam and Eve can get at it if he doesn't want them eating from it? If you have a delicate Mhing vase you do not wish destroyed, you do not put it on a rickety pedestal with a toddler in the room and then walk away. It doesn't matter how much you tell the child, "Don't touch." He doesn't understand. He's innocent.
quote:quote: Since the Bible said so. You have read the Bible, haven't you? Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Genesis 3:10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. God even goes so far as to make clothes for them: Genesis 3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. If god doesn't care about nakedness, why does he bother to make clothes for them?
quote:quote: If they were perfect, they would be incapable of sin. Therefore, eating from the tree of knowledge was not a sin. I never said they didn't have free will. I said they were innocent. An innocent person can choose between going left and going right, but he doesn't understand the consequences of that choice precisely because he is innocent. Thus, he cannot be held responsible for that choice. Disobedience requires a comprehension of good and evil. It requires a deliberate act of defiance which the innocent are incapable of by definition: They are innocent.
quote: Indeed, that would be illogical. And thank heaven that I never said nor implied any such thing. I did not say Adam and Eve were not guilty because they had never sinned before. I said they were not guilty because they were incapable of committing sin. Committing sin requires comprehension of good and evil which by definition Adam and Eve did not have because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Being naked is a sin as shown by the direct statement of the Bible in Genesis 2 and by the actions of Adam, Eve, and god in Genesis 3. And yet, nobody seems to mind so long as Adam and Eve remain innocent. They don't know what they're doing and thus, they aren't committing sin. Thus, eating from the tree of knowledge also is not a sin. They don't know what they are doing and thus, they aren't committing sin.
quote:quote: Snappy comeback. Now, try responding to the point. Given the fact that at least Adam had seen god directly and god certainly wouldn't sin by being naked, Adam has at least experienced the distinction between being clothed and not being clothed and he doesn't understand the importance of this distinction until after he eats from the tree. So even if Adam was told directly to obey god, what good would it do? He's innocent and doesn't understand what "obedience" means. Wouldn't he have already clothed himself to emultate god? Why do Adam and Eve panic over the fact that they are naked? Why are they ashamed of being naked? They have always been naked before. What's changed? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 responds to me:
quote:quote: Where do you get that? I would like you to show me the chapter and verse in Genesis where it says that the serpent purposefully attempted to deceive Adam and Eve. It is no good taking Eve's word for it. She's making excuses for her disobedience. Where did the serpent tell Eve to eat from the tree? Chapter and verse, please.
quote:quote: And that's exactly what happened. They didn't die and they became as gods. Haven't you read the Bible? Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. So since god directly states that Adam would die a physical death before sunset if he were to eat of the tree and since Adam did not die a physical death before sunset when he ate from the tree, where do you get off saying the serpent lied? Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: So since god directly states that Adam and Eve became as gods and since the serpent said that Adam and Eve would become as gods from eating of the tree, where do you get off saying the serpent lied?
quote:quote: Someone who is capable of reading. You asked why the serpent would say what he did. I directly told you that I don't really know since the Bible does not say. I speculated. It's as good a reason as any other since the Bible doesn't say why the serpent did what he did. He didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. He did tell her the truth of what would happen if she did.
quote: What distortion? Where have I said anything that isn't directly stated in the Bible?
quote:quote: Yes, I do. When was the last time you did any research on the history of Judaism and how Zoroastrianism played a part in its history? Compare the story of David and the census as noted in 2 Samuel 24 as compared to 1 Chronicles 21: 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 1 Chronicles 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. Um, why the switch? Who was it that spurred David to do the census? Was it god or was it Satan? 2 Samuel was written about 560 BCE while 1 Chronicles was written about 400 BCE. It's during that time period that the idea of an agent that is independent of god and works against god comes into Judaism. Before that, all things good and evil come from god for god is the creator of everything. The Bible directly states so: Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 40-55 was written sometime around the middle of the sixth century BCE. This meshes with 2 Samuel's vision of god being the one that spurs David since they were written about the same time. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:quote: Well, seeing as how there's only Adam and Eve and the curse is that all of Eve's children will have enmity with the serpent's offspring, the only logical conclusion is that it applies to all of humanity since we are all necessarily children of Eve. The only thing you've got going is that there might be more than two serpents around, but the Bible doesn't say that there are. It hints that this serpent is reasonably unique: Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? "The" serpent? And since serpents these days don't have legs (other than a few throwbacks), the only conclusion is that all current serpents are descendents of the one that was cursed.
quote: And rabbits don't chew the cud, bats are not birds, and there is no insect with four legs. The fact that the Bible gets it wrong when it comes to zoology isn't surprising.
quote: Agreed. If one were to read Genesis 2 with a more critical eye, one might come to the conclusion that it's really a test to see who is gullible. I have often posited that the Bible was actually written by the devil with the parts reversed. After all, what better coup than to get you to think that the devil is god and god is the devil? How else to explain a being that sets somebody up for failure and then punishes them for that failure? Is that not the act of an evil being?
quote:quote: No, because you can build a tower tall enough to reach heaven (Genesis 11). Since we know that the atmosphere eventually goes away and we know that Eden was lush and verdant, Eden must be on the earth somewhere. It certainly cannot be anywhere beyond earth's atmosphere. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 responds to me:
quote:quote: What do you think "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" means? You do know that Judaism measures its days by the sunset, right? That's why Genesis 1 talks about "the evening and the morning." Days are marked by the sun going down. The phrasing used in Genesis 2:17 is quite clear to anybody who speaks Hebrew: Physical death before sunset. u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut: What more do you need?
quote: But the serpent isn't the one who mentioned anything about dying. That was Eve: Genesis 3:2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. The serpent didn't mention anything about dying until Eve brings it up. They even use the same words that god used: Genesis 3:3: u.mip.ri ha.ets a.sher be.tokh-ha.gan a.mar e.lo.him lo tokh.lu mi.me.nu ve.lo tig.u bo pen te.mu.tun: Genesis 3:4: va.yo.mer ha.na.khash el-ha.i.sha lo-mot te.mu.tun: What do you think that means?
quote: But that isn't what god said. God said they would die a physical death. u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut: What do you think that means?
quote:quote: So what? Why would Adam follow it since he doesn't know what obedience is? He doesn't know what good and evil are so he has no concept of obedience. By what justification would Adam reason, "I shouldn't do that"? Especially when told that the person who told you not to do that was lying to you?
quote: Just like he chose not to wear clothes. If he got a pass for that sin, why is god so upset over them eating from the tree of knowledge?
quote: Indeed, it is quite simple to understand: Adam and Eve were set up. They were innocent and punished for something they had no control over.
quote: Incorrect. That is precisely what one needs. Obedience requires comprehension of good and evil. You cannot obey someone without comprehension of the consequences of your actions should you disobey. A choice can only mean something when one understands the consequences of that choice.
quote: And by what justification would they reason that they should follow god's words? They don't know what good and evil are, so saying that they should follow god because god is good isn't an answer. Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Which one do you choose? I believe this is the third time I've asked you this question and I do not ask it for my health. I really would like a direct response to my direct question: Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote: Innocently. She wasn't sinning. How could she when she was incapable of understanding good and evil? Sin requires a conscious decision to do evil. Eve, who doesn't know what evil is, is incapable of sinning.
quote: Says who? Please show me the chapter and verse where Adam proclaims his disavowal of the serpent's claim. Adam never mentions the serpent.
quote:quote: But god has. So which is it? You know the difference between them. God has told you which one he wishes. So which one is it?
quote: But why are you following god's words? Is following god beetaratagang or is it clerendipity? Surely you know which one it is.
quote:quote: But they didn't die. Therefore, god lied. He didn't explain the consequences. He said that they would die and they didn't.
quote:quote: Yes, I did. My mistake.
quote: In the words used. u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut: What do you think "mot" means? The root is "muwth" which not only means "die" but also has overtones of dying prematurely. It is used to refer to the dealth penalty, the death of nations, and dying before one's time. It is used over 800 times in the Bible and most specifically gets used when the Bible mentions Adam's actual death: Genesis 5:5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. va.yih.yu kol-ye.mei a.dam a.sher-khai te.sha me.ot sha.na u.she.lo.shim sha.na va.ya.mot: The same words. If it didn't mean a physical death then, why does it mean a physical death now?
quote: You're beginning to see. How on earth can you explain consequences to someone who doesn't understand what consequences are? Please tell us how you would describe "red" to a blind person.
quote: They had to eat. Therefore, they were well acquainted with death.
quote: No, he didn't. Methinks you've been reading a poor concordance showing roots rather than the actual Hebrew: Genesis 2:17: u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut:
quote: No, implying death right here, right now, before your time. That's what "muwth" means: Premature death, killing, slaying.
quote: No, I am not tacking on anything. That's what the word means.
quote:quote: Ask god. The Bible doesn't say. The most obvious reason is that they had broken the only commandment they had ever been given and as is quite clear from the text, the god of the Old Testament is a snotty brat who regularly sets people up to fail and then punishes them for doing precisely that.
quote: Because they were driven out before they had the chance. The Bible directly states this: Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
quote: Because they were now capable of sin, seeing as how their eyes were opened to good and evil. You can't sin if you don't know what you're doing. Sin requires knowledge of good and evil. Sin is the deliberate intention to engage in evil. If you don't know what evil is, you cannot sin.
quote: Do you?
quote:quote: Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. The very first thing that Adam and Eve panic over after they eat from the tree of knowledge and become as gods is not the fact that they just disobeyed the only commandment they had ever been given. It's the fact that they're naked: Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And when god comes looking for them (and why does god need to look for them?) and asks them why they are hiding, it isn't because they are ashamed for having disobeyed but rather because they are naked: Genesis 3:10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Therefore, Genesis points out that running around without clothes is a sin. What more do you need? It says it directly three times.
quote: Incorrect. It points out that their first act after not sinning was one of shame.
quote: I already did: Genesis 3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Why would god make clothes for them if he didn't care if they were naked?
quote: Then why would he make clothes for them? Why would they be ashamed of being naked? Why would the Bible specifically point out that they were naked and not ashamed when they were still innocent?
quote: How is being naked a depravity? You said so yourself (Message 34):
Since when is being naked a sin anyway? So which is it? Is being naked depravity or not?
quote: Not if I didn't think it was depraved. Remember, nobody told them that they were naked. They figured it out on their own because they had just eaten from the tree of knowledge and acquired the ability to know good and evil. And why on earth are you talking about sex? It isn't like Adam and Eve were humping twenty-four hours a day. If nothing they had done before eating from the tree of knowledge was a sin, why would doing the exact same thing they had always done suddenly become something shameful and in need of hiding after they had eaten?
quote: Nowhere in Genesis. Please try to stick to the text actually under discussion.
quote:quote: That isn't what the Bible says. And they managed this long without clothes. Why would they need them now?
quote: Because being naked is a sin.
quote: Who said Eden was a perfect environment?
quote: Because being naked is a sin.
quote: He doesn't have to. We are as gods now, knowing good and evil. The very first thing that Adam and Eve do upon eating from the tree of knowledge is panic over being naked. In his wrath regarding Adam and Eve, he kicks them out with only a change of clothes. The Bible even directly says that being naked is a sin: Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Who are you to contradict the Bible?
quote:quote: Fine. The question still stands: If they were perfect, they would be incapable of sin. And, of course, they were incapable of sin: They were innocent. That's what "innocent" means: Incapable of consciously doing evil. And that what sin means: Consciously doing evil. One cannot sin if one is innocent.
quote: And they didn't. They didn't choose to do evil. They chose to eat from a tree. Being completely and utterly ignorant of what good and evil were, they would be incapable of deliberately choosing evil.
quote: From the definition of "perfect." A perfect person would not deliberately choose to destroy that perfection. A perfect person would not engage in activity that he knew would cause the loss of that perfection. Note, this doesn't mean that he is incapable of losing his perfection through his own actions. It means that any loss of that perfection is not the result of his conscious choice to become imperfect.
quote: But they did so innocently and thus punishment was an evil act. You don't punish the baby for knocking over the vase. He doesn't know any better. You're the adult. You're the one that is supposed to make sure that the vase isn't there to be knocked over.
quote:quote: Yes, I have. Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Who are you to contradict the Bible?
quote:quote: No, you haven't. You've interpolated a haughtiness upon them that wasn't there before and isn't displayed anywhere in the text. Adam and Eve cover up not because of self-righteousness but because of its opposite: Shame. They say so directly.
quote: Precisely! So since their eyes were opened AFTER eating from the tree, how could they possibly be held responsible for eating from the tree? They didn't know any better! They were innocent. Their eyes were closed to such things as good and evil. Certainly they made choices, but they had no idea what those choices meant. Good and evil were to them as beetaratagang and clerendipity are to you. For one who understands them, it is quite clear which is which. For one who doesn't understand, they are meaningless.
quote: So why don't they panic over having eaten from the tree? Since they know what good and evil are, why cover up if being naked isn't a sin?
quote: Because being naked is a sin.
quote: There's nothing to distort.
quote: I know. I've met five-year-olds that asked these very questions.
quote: I have no beef with god. What makes you think the story of Genesis has any connection with god? Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 responds to me:
quote:quote: Says who? You? That's certainly not what Genesis says. Genesis 3:1: ve.ha.na.khash ha.ya a.rum mi.kol kha.yat ha.sa.de a.sher a.sa a.do.nai e.lo.him va.yo.mer el-ha.i.sha af ki-a.mar e.lo.him lo tokh.lu mi.kol ets ha.gan: The root is "'aruwm" which means "prudent," "shrewd," "sensible."
quote: But the serpent was right. That's part of the lesson: The serpent was sensible and telling the truth and still Adam and Eve were punished. There is no evil cast to the serpent at all.
quote: Incorrect. It is the truth. They don't die. Instead, they become as gods, knowing good and evil, just like the serpent said: Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: If you aren't going to take god's word for it that they became as gods, knowing good and evil, just the like the serpent said they would, who are you going to believe?
quote: Excuse me? You're not confusing the serpent with the devil, are you?
quote:quote: Nope, they only died one. Genesis 5 marks it for Adam. We don't know when Eve died.
quote: Incorrect. The serpent said you will not die that very day and he was right.
quote: Incorrect. Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: If you aren't going to take god's word for it that they became as gods, knowing good and evil, just the like the serpent said they would, who are you going to believe?
quote: And where does Genesis say that? Chapter and verse, please.
quote:quote: Just like the Bible says: Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. If you aren't going to believe the Bible, what are you going to believe?
quote: And he didn't. He said they would not die that day but instead would become as gods, knowing good and evil. And that's exactly what happens. Even god says so: Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: If you aren't going to take god's word for it that they became as gods, knowing good and evil, just the like the serpent said they would, who are you going to believe?
quote: Incorrect. I said it was impossible for a perfect being to sin (Message 40):
If they were perfect, they would be incapable of sin. There's a difference. Sin is the deliberate choice to do evil. One cannot deliberately choose to do evil unless one knows what evil is. A person who doesn't know what evil is can still do an act that would be considered evil...he's just not consciously choosing evil.
quote: And so they were. The Bible says so: Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. If you aren't going to believe the Bible, what are you going to believe?
quote: And so he did: Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. They didn't.
quote: Incorrect. I make no implications at all what the motivations of the serpent are. The Bible is exceedingly vague about why the serpent did what he did. I merely point out that the serpent did not lie. Not a single thing he said was false. And at no point does he tell Eve to eat from the tree. I can speculate, but there is no biblical justification for my speculations. I can only go by what the Bible actually says and by that record, the serpent did not trick Eve at all.
quote: Oh? And what does it tell? Remember...there's a good chance that if I don't believe in your god, I also don't believe in your devil. And remember...just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Morte responds to me:
quote: You'll have to wait and see, alas. It isn't for me to say. The words, "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity," came from my first formal acting class. In a scene, the characters have a goal...something that they want to have happen. It can be mundane such as getting your partner to sit down or dramatic such as getting him to kill himself. Thus, you employ tactics through the scene. The way you hold your body, the way you say your words, the way you position yourself with respect to the scene, all are involved in the way you are trying to manipulate events in order to achieve your goal. There are positive tactics where you are trying to make the other person do what you want for the pleasure of it and there are negative tactics where they do it lest they suffer the consequences. F'rinstance, you could convince someone to kill himself by sweettalking him into it, pointing out how he doesn't have anything to live for, that he'd be better off dead, that those he leaves behind will be better off without him, etc., etc. Or, you could point out that you're going to beat the living snot out of him every day until he finally comes to realize that the only escape is to kill himself. Now, the text will often restrict what kind of tactics you employ, but you will find that you can often play a scene both ways. Take a look at Winston in 1984. O'Brien is physically torturing him, visiting exquisite pain on Winston, but his words are sweet and soothing. He comes right out and tells Winston exactly what he's going to do without any malice. The contrast is truly frightening. If O'Brien had come off as sadistic and menacing, it wouldn't nearly be as horrifying. The destruction of Winston would just be the result of the huge machine grinding away at the poor soul who got in the way. But instead, O'Brien is cajoling Winston into deliberately destroying himself. It makes it that much more tragic when Winston falls. So to help a student actor study the various types of positive and negative tactics, "contentless scenes" are often practiced. The actor is given a goal but the text of the scene is so generic that there is nothing directly in the text that would tell you how to do it. In this particular variation, you only have two words: Beetaratagang and clerendipity. One is the word you use when going for a positive tactic. The other is the word you use for a negative tactic (and I may or may not have put them in the correct order.) The words are quite appropriate for this type of discussion. One will lead you to heaven while the other will lead you to hell. But if you don't understand which is which, how on earth do you choose? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 writes:
quote: So why do so many people who do believe in god seem to come up with different interpretations about what Genesis means? Surely you're not saying the Jews treat the scripture the same way as the Christians do, are you?
quote: What makes you think I don't believe in god? For the umpteenth time, just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. It also doesn't mean I don't believe in the Bible. It simply means that you and I disagree about the nature of god and the point of the Bible.
quote: Not according to the Bible: Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. God is increasing the pain of childbirth for Eve. He is not making Eve capable of childbirth to begin with. She already had that. Instead, her punishment is that it will be excruciatingly painful. And if that still isn't enough for you, remember that god told them directly to have children: Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. What do you think "be fruitful and multiply" means? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hangdawg13 writes:
quote: Incorrect. I gave you the original Hebrew. Why didn't you pay attention? Genesis 2:17: u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut:
quote: I do. That's why I wrote them down for you to look at. Weren't you paying attention?
quote: Incorrect. I gave you specific meanings for what the root "muwth" means in Message 50:
The root is "muwth" which not only means "die" but also has overtones of dying prematurely. It is used to refer to the dealth penalty, the death of nations, and dying before one's time. It is used over 800 times in the Bible and most specifically gets used when the Bible mentions Adam's actual death: Genesis 5:5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. va.yih.yu kol-ye.mei a.dam a.sher-khai te.sha me.ot sha.na u.she.lo.shim sha.na va.ya.mot: The same words. If it didn't mean a physical death then, why does it mean a physical death now? Weren't you paying attention? No, not every time the Bible mentions death does it mean a physical death. Not even every time the Bible uses "muwth" or its inflections does it mean a physical death (nations not being alive, they cannot experience a "physical" death the way humans do.) What it does mean, however, is the cessation of existence, usually before one's time. It is the word used when talking about the death penalty, which is definitely a physical death.
quote: If that were the case, they wouldn't have used "muwth" for "muwth" means premature cessation of material existence. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024