The location of the Tree of Life

I think his insistence on interpreting the story without recourse to other parts of scripture (or a close examination of other cultures which may have influenced the early texts of Genesis) is the double standard.Again, I might be wrong. However, I think this is a double standard because in many other parts of the Scriptures arachnophilia seems to not mind interjecting thoughts from other cultures or references to other parts of the Scriptures to prove a point -- yet he seems to insist that we read the earliest chapters of Chapters of Genesis by "itself" in order to conclude that the "snake" is only a "snake".Again, I mean no offense to you personally arachnophilia. I've read elsewhere in this thread where you said... I can identify with this even if I don't agree with some parts of it. It seems as though, basically, that you're trying to read the earliest chapters of Genesis without any outside bias influencing your thoughts -- and I respect that. But I would add that I think it's a virtually impossible task, especially since the Israelites themselves were most likely already influenced by other cultures before God stepped in and clarified his revelation to them. At the very least it seems possible that both God and other cultures influenced the earliest Scriptural accounts.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-15-2005 09:09 PM

I guess I'm not following this.Genesis was written by Moses, who was raised in the Egyptian court. At what point does this other cultural influence enter in? Through the stories preserved among the Hebrews? Abraham, after all, came from Ur and would have brought much of their lore with him, and he and his sons lived among the cultures of Canaan before the sojourn in Egypt too. But are you supposing other influences AFTER the Israelites were settled in Canaan or what? Those clearly enter in later, in Judges and the rest of the histories.

Hmmm...interesting.I took a look at this passage in the NIV. It read as follows: So apparently this is two different sentences like you said. Would the NIV be acceptable? So if I found examples where the first condition is short but the final condition is long (or vise versa), would this be considered an acceptable reason not to think that the first condition necessarilly needed to match the length of time of the second condition?Just to be clear, I looked at this passage from the NIV's translation: Ok...I'm going to let these two pass for now. I still think there's some cases here for one to conclude that it could be refering to a immediate "recognition" followed by long term "effects" -- but these passages are unclear on exactly how long the "time the LORD talked with Moses on Mount Sinai" was (I thought it was 40 days and that the Aaronic order continued for well over a 1000 years, but I admit I could be wrong). Let's take a look at Numbers 30:4-6 (and surrounding texts) in the NIV... The other passage is similar to this one, but applies to wives in relation to their husbands (again within the ancient Judaic culture). Yes, there's an immediate "recognition" of their duties, but the "effects" of this recognition are still potentially very long term. Again, I realize that the passages of God's warning to Adam in Genesis is applying to death and not vows -- yet here I am showing a passage which does show an "immediate" recognition of their condition followed by a long period of having to deal their "long term" effects.Is this not what many are saying happened when talking about Adam and Eve?They seem to be claiming that "on that day" Adam and Eve "recognized" that they did something wrong, which is then followed by an extended period whereby they are suffering its long term "effects". Well...I don't know about that.Let's take a look at the passages of Scripture in the NIV which use the phrase "you will surely die" I'm just reading through these passages to glean what they say about the time-scales involved. I'll have to get back to this when I have a chance.However, just with a cursory inspection, while I agree that the passage in Samuel could debatedly be considered an immediate "recognition" followed by immediate "effects", the passages found in Ezekiel do not lend themselves so easilly to this strict interpretation.Edit: I would also note that a better phrase exists in the Scriptures to designate when something will happen "immediately". The phrase "on that day" seems to indicate an immediate cause and effect as follows: Likewise, if one is talking about a longer term than an "immediate effect", the phrase "in that day" seems to be utilized. It is shwon below as follows, and seems to indicate something happening well into some unspecified time in the future: I find it odd that the NIV used neither the phrase "on that day" (for immediate effects) nor the phrase "in that day" (for long term effects) to describe the account of humanity's fall in the garden.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-15-2005 11:15 PM

I don't know -- and I don't really want to debate this part with you Faith. I'm just trying to show that Genesis cannot read so as to conclude that the "snake" is only a "snake" without one ignoring a huge wealth of "spiritual inspirations" from the cultures that pre-dated the Israelites and/or surrounded their sojourn through the Middle East. And yes, this becomes even more difficult when one actually incorporates what the Scriptures themselves have to say about the fall of humanity.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-16-2005 01:25 AM

well, using leviathan as a theme, sure. quite.

---

אָרַח

yes, i saw that. now, how is that a lie? where does the book SAY that serpent tricked her? you mean god? not sure. adam's pretty stupid, so maybe it was the only way god could explain that his actions would have consequences. and yet, sadly, this is a point of debate here. fundamentalists assert that it's ONE book, written by one person (god) and is entirely continuous with no inconsistencies. or torah, which means law. and no, not everything is written off of the first 5. no, they reference the first 5. you and i are referencing the first 5 here. we're not continuing them. similarly, the talmud references the torah alot too. the niv has no such thing. there's nothing in the majority of bible books that says who wrote what book. what your particular edition is doing is adding an about page, which is all reports of speculation and traditions. and very, very occasionally archaeology.tradition holds that moses wrote genesis. proper textual study shows that he could not have. for instance, the story reports on domestic camels (isaac and rachel, the well, etc). there any camels in exodus? that's because they weren't domesticated until 900 bc or so. could be a little off on the date, but it was well after moses's time. look at this bit:

quote:

---

Gen 36:31 And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

---

now, if we a book written about native north americans, and we see a mention that one group of tribes held a confederacy, but well before the south had established one themselves, could we conclude that the book had been written after the civil war? yes, i think so.similar, we can conlude that genesis was written druing or after the period of kings. further textual study shows that genesis had at least 3 authors, or 3 GROUPS of authors. still do. yes. that means without sin. if job had been sinful, there's no point to the story. no test of faith: his punishment is deserved. so, you're saying that you personally believe that your god has condemned your children before they even had a chance to properly know him? that's curiousity. adam and eve were essentially children. part of the learning process is getting hurt. now, i know you don't want your children zapped, but maybe to know better they have to try it. is sticking your finger in the light socket a sin? do you care about their disobedience, really? or just worried they're gonna get hurt?do you think god cared more about adam and eve disobeying him? or that they would have to live with the consequences of their actions? cultural. you're speaking of a nature vs. nurture debate. i've already said that i don't even particularly care. i think sin is in our nature. i just don't think that we are CONDEMNED for it, until we actually do it. i don't think god punishes us simply for the way he made us, and not for our actions. that was not a punishment, or even a consequence of their eating of knowledge, was it? the original statement was that when they eat, they die. if simply removing them from the tree of life condemns them to death, that means they were mortal to begin with. their natural state is mortality if they need a tree to keep them alive.which is markedly different from paul's take, isn't it? but that's the implication of genesis. there's been about 2000 years of speculation on that subject. the real answer is "nobody knows." second option, and partially the third. i think there's something of god in it, but diluted heavily. i've posted my views on it before, but since you asked, i'll go over them again.i think the story is about the origin of concious thought. seems pretty obvious in retrospect, right? the tree of knowledge and all. genesis is a collection of stories about how things got to be the way they are now (at the time of the writing). and so when we look at stories, most are etiologies (like "how the leopard got his spots" and "how the camel got his hump"). these purposes are usually found at the end of the story, in a short statement. some translations render it starting "that is why." but the kjv uses "therefore" i think.so genesis 1 is about why the sabbath is important. genesis 2 is about why we get married. and genesis 3 is about why the israelites live in a desert. but there's a little more to it than that. like i said, origin of concious thought. the punishments that god doles out are consequences of awareness in adam and eve. adam is now a slave to his technology. agriculture. he has to work the ground he came from, his whole life. eve is to raise children with physical and emotional pain. these statements about loss and work are valid even today.the story also explains why snakes have no legs, and why they lick the ground. the implication is that they are too busy using their tongues for other things to tell us stuff that gets us in trouble. it also explains why we don't like snakes (also to keep us out of trouble, i think).this assumes a couple of things: the effects of the tree of knowledge were permanent. which would imply the same thing for the tree of life. meaning they hadn't eaten from it before. it also assumes the snake had not eaten from either. the story just says he was smart. i think a lot of people are being decieved. i don't see the story as a justification to say that god hates us and condemns us from birth. i think god is loving and protecting, and i read that into the story. all it really says is that god is jealous of his status. and yet, what does god say in the story? "Behold, the man is become as one of us."the common thread in genesis is man's similarity to god. this is rather unique in the bible, i might point out. most other books do not take this attitude, and god becomes so foreign and incommunicable that we need a god in human form (jesus) just to interpret for us.people see genesis 3 as a "fall" because it is the start of the biblical journey away from god. but what does jesus essentially say? something to extent of god is not that far away. exactly. but keep in mind, i'm not saying we're born perfect. we're not. god didn't make us perfect, and he did this because he was very wise. if we were perfect, we could never learn anything. we could never become more than we are. and we could progress beyond simply a creation. and i think, at the very heart of the creation story, is an idea of evolution. god creates us so that we can become more than we are. he gives us free will, so that he can have something interesting. he already had blind servants: angels. i think that god eventually wants an equal. christ refers to the church and believers as the bride of god. what was there in the law to fulfill? he seems to be defending traditional reform judaism. i think jesus came, as a prophet, because we had lost sight of god and our way. and i think jesus came, as the son of god, as a gesture of god's love and willingness to sacrifice ANYTHING for us.god could not ask abraham to sacrifice his son for him, but he was willing to sacrifice his own for us. i don't think it had much of anything to do with overcoming death, or removing sin itself. i think was a just a way to make it known to us that god does love and forgive us, and have a place for us. well, it fits with most of the old testament, whereas this born into sin bit does not. but it won't fit with the writings of paul, or most of the nt. so you can't really win. you just have to pick the compromise you like better.

---

אָרַח

probably the other way around.i seem to recall reading somewhere that leviathan/lotan and tiamat were related stories. and there are a lot of babylonian-type legends in the bible. everything from creation, to the flood, to maybe even the book of esther (ishtar and marduk = esther and mordechai?)

---

אָרַח

it's not as assue of "catching" it, it's an issue of CORRECTING it. let me give you a modern example.we know that paul says not to get circumcised, and that long hair is a disgrace to me. paul, i suspect, knew he was contradicting the ot when he wrote this. the ot says get circumcised, but don't cut your hair. now, when people compiled the modern christian bible, they probably knew this too.so why haven't we "fixed" it? well, simple question: which one is right? do we as humans have the right to correct the word of god? are we god's editor? that's the opinion of whoever put this book together. they are merely collectors, not editors. they just put together stories that were already holy on their own. but they couldn't CHANGE the stories.in fact, i can only find a few instances of biblical editing, and all of it has to do with removal of polytheistic tendencies. well, i meant gen 3 specifically. trees with magical fruit and talking snakes. sounds like an aesop fable. the rest of genesis even has a decidedly different tone. why do you think? they're approaching it with an entirely different attitude. they're trying to present the bible as one single book: "god's word." they want it to say the things paul says about it, and for it to all fit together. but it, like anything else, has problems and inconsistencies. well, trust me, we hased out that out for a long time. it caused quite a little controversy. but one thing is pretty certain: that is what the bible says about god. and i only went through the first two or three books.however, i think the bible's commentary on god is more of a commentary on the people who wrote it. their god is sort of a reflection of themselves; they put their social views and contexts on to him. god is really a bit more all-encompassing than that. so i don't think god is really like all that.but if one is to believe the bible is literally true, they'd have to. you mean without bad? yes, i whole heartily agree. god did create evil, and he did for a reason. just like god put that tree in the garden for a reason. and yet i think the people who wrote the bible were suprisingly modern. some customs and contexts are a little strange to us, and the technology is missing, but a lot of the society is largely the same. when they wrote about the earlier times (genesis) they projected their views on to it, just like we do with historical dramas. well, this is true. but it's not just today. you can see god actually disappear from the bible if you read it closely. he's barely around in kings. and when you get to song of songs, esther, and ruth, he's just plain gone.but during the exile... he's there in full force. i think part of reason we have the bible around today is that some of still does speak to us, and we do feel it. genesis 3, for instance, may be downright silly and outdated now, but there's still some element of important truth to it. if you want my honest opinion, i'd say there were much more difficult times to believe in god. like i mentioned before, the exile. the israelites and the jews (separate at the time) were both taken into exile, surrounded and inundated with a foriegn cultre, killed for professing their faiths, and many, many hebrews totally lost touch with who they were. god had promised them that a son of david would always sit on the throne, and they would be in their chosen land forever. and then that promise was broken. it would have been very, very easy to say "screw this whole yahweh idea" and gone over to babylonian religion. in fact, in order to protect the jewish faith, the religious authorities at the time had to put a kind of condition on god's promise, saying god broke it because they were bad.similarly, can you imagine trying to remain jewish during the holocaust? we're sitting here in our homes, in relative luxury, debating readings. we have it easy, our faiths are not being tested.

---

אָרַח

did they die when they ate? if they did not die when they ate, then the serpent told the truth.however, he still MISLEAD them. and i'm not saying decieved, i'm saying "lead in the wrong manner." he told them to do something god had told them not to do. and in that respect, he was wrong. whether or not a serpent has a good point, we're still supposed to only follow god. yes, it is. so long as you're ok with calling him a hypocrite too for telling us not to kill, and then killing people himself.

---

אָרַח

relented? that doesn't even make sense. the story is very clearly saying that god was sorry he'd made man, that he considered it a mistake. even if the word itself were not there (and it is, btw, and it's the same word in the numbers verse in hebrew, NChM) the idea of it still is. the idea of god letting some of stick around doesn't come up until we meet noah, two verses later. (the next verse repeats the idea that god was sorry he'd made man)and so the entire earth is saved for noah's sake. yeah, i agree. that's fine. what if your children outdo you at something you're good at? is that jealousy fine too? except in that genesis verse. it does say that god was sorry he had made man. it says it greived him. but i do agree that god does hold back a lot. and i think genesis 3 is a good example of that -- god holds back the death sentance. absolutely not!god is not a man, that he should repent. what do you think that verse means? god defines the law, god makes the law, god IS the law. and the law is for us to follow and obey, not god.when we look at the law itself (the set of rules, not the 5 books) it follows a set format. it's a treaty, actually. in the ancient mid east, when one power conquered another, or a big country formed an alliance with a little country, they made a suzertainty treaty. these start out by saying "this is who i am, i did this and this and this for you" and then goes to on to list what the smaller country owes them in exchange.now look at the ten commandments.
identity of the larger party: "I [am] the LORD thy God,"
what the larger party did: "which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
what the smaller party owes them in exchange: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me...." [etc].the whole law is based on the condition of the indenties of the twi parties. the law only applies to hebrews. and god is not held to the conditions of the smaller party (israel). god makes the law, but he does not need to follow it. by definition? by definition "holy" means "not human" or rather "separate [from us]." any time you have a sentance that starts "god can't ___" it's wrong. god can do whatever he wants to do. including lie.i don't believe that god DOES certain things, but he CAN if he wants to. and what is god's nature? what can we say about who god is, if he is truly holy? how can we know god, and what the nature of deity is? well, i also see how it fits with other texts, and see if it really says what those other texts indicate it does. for instance, i don't think paul's views on it hold any weight. i don't see the attitude of death entering the world, or any of the pre-original sin stuff he talks about. it might, yes. iirc the strictest judaic interpretation is that the torah was divinely revealed, but that each next section is less and less holy. (the nevi'im being less divine than the torah, and ketuvim being less divine than the nevi'im)personally, of course, i don't agree. i think god inspires somewhat sparingly and in different ways. well, when i said i read them for what they are, i do. i'm not ignoring the other books, because some of the sources do carry over. bits of genesis seem to have the same author as some bits in other "mosaic" texts. but genesis never says it was written by moses. the bit in deuteronomy? no, the whole book was written by someone else. i was talking about sources earlier, and deut. is it's own source. it's the one book of the torah that was written as a book. and it's well after moses. in fact, i'm rather certain that it's a forgery.if you look at how the book is setup (know that it's one book), it starts out on the other side of the jordan from moses. moses is delivering a speech. so at the very, very earliest it was written, it had to have been taken down by someone besides moses on the same side of the jordan as the israelites. but not moses.

quote:

---

Gen 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.

---

well, i agree, to an extent. he DOES indicate that they will die immediately, but only implies that either he or tree itself will do it. however, the later punishments he DOES give them are all natural consequences of the knowledge. that's the most interesting thing i've read all day! i'll give that some thought, and look it up. i totally agree with this. i think (and you'll probably find me saying this earlier in the thread) that the tree of life was withheld from man because he was not ready for it, with implication that one day we might be. so in a sense, it was protective. this of course, is not in the simplest reading of the text, only jealousy is. but i think it adequately fits into the literal text. i've been accused to picking and choosing before. and in a sense, i am. but so is everyone. one of the consequences of free will. i as unaware of this, actually, until now. but i'll look into it. i'm also going to start learning hebrew in the fall, so that i can actually read the text myself without any translation bias. the translation i have and use most often right now is the jps, which can only be accused of having a judaic bias. it removes references to "sons of god" for instance, because that's too pagan for it. this could be another instance, even though i've never seen any other way of rendering it until, well, just now. no no, don't get me wrong. i know that the serpent is a religious symbol. remember the flying fiery serpents from numbers? moses made an idol of one, to heal the israelites. josiah later destroyed it as a symbol of foriegn religions. pretty good biblical evidence, if you ask me. there's been talk here before relating the tree of knowledge to fertility cults too. genesis is mildly isolationist, and pokes fun at other religions (the tower of babels, the idol's under rachel's butt? they're laughing at these things. not openly condemning them, but condemning them as ridiculous.the message of genesis may well be that we should follow god, and not pathetic little snake religions. even if there really are snakes around and their faith looks true.the snake does, and HAS to represent evil in some respect, because he convinces adam and eve to stray from god's commandment. but he has to also be a snake in the literal reading of the story, because when he's punished, his punishment is about the things that make snakes what they are. he can symbolically represent satan, if you like, but he cannot BE satan. the symbolic cannot contradict the literal. and genesis 3 might indeed have something to do with that. "know" as in "knowledge" is a euphemism for sex. the words are related da'ath (knowledge, or secret knowledge) comes from yada (to know/to have sexual intercourse). which makes it a pun, sort of. and whoever wrote genesis LOVED puns. and like i said above, i've heard talks about the tree relating to fertility cults. so the snake/earth mother/fertility connection serves to affirm.but i've only really been looking at one tiny bit of the story. you're right. but i think to a degree, it's also mocking those religions. genesis can be very mocking. well, the meaninglessness comes from "don't drink that orange juice. you'll die." it doesn't really mean anything. of course you'll die. but not from the orange juice. and not anytime soon. (i hope at least) sure. i'm ok with that. i don't think god DOES lie. i think genesis is just a bad interpretation of god, or god was using a hyperbole, or terms adam and eve would understand. or maybe even holding back punishment. there are a ton of other ways of reading it, without inserting words. i think that the bible is indicating the god is manipulating pharoah to a certain extent. he's exagerating the qualities that are already there. well, it seems to be that god wanted the prophets to be decieved too. they weren't false prophets, they were just telling ahab what they thought god was telling them. god was using a spirit to lie to them to decieve ahab. we could probably spin this off into another thread. i believe very strongly in providence. god gives us exactly what we need, and god uses everything at his disposal in a favourable manner somehow. even evil and lies.look at hitler's antisemitism, for example. had he trusted and properly funded his jewish-lead atomic program, they would have had a bomb. so in some essence the holocaust happened so a bigger nuclear holocaust would not have. yes, but satan is also a more recent invention in hebrew mythology. he first appears in chronicles, but not the corresponding chapter in samuel. aren't we all? i'm ok with it referencing earlier mythology. i think it probably does. i think it also mock and makes fun of earlier mythology to some extent. but satan is not earlier mythology, and in the context of the story, it still has to literally be a snake. in fact, it's probably claiming that the other religion's god's aren't real: they're just snakes.it likes to make fun of current peoples (at the time of writing) by making fun of their ancestors. in this case, they might be making fun of current "other gods" by making fun of that god's ancestor. a lowly snake. yeah, see, this is where you lose it.you;re missing another word too: "livestock." it identifies him as among, but ABOVE livestock.

quote:

---

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

---

so does the beginning. now he's cursed above the livestock. but still an animal. there's nothing about satan crawling on his belly anywhere in the bible (not even when he's portrayed a dragon, in revelation). similarly, there's nothing about satan being cast out of heaven (until revelation's end times). the whole story is unbiblical. the serpent is never described as eating adam and eve, or wanting to. he merely leads them astray. and grasshoppers don't have four legs. but yes, the symbolism is there.

---

i'll get back to the rest of this post later. i have to go out now and whore some artwork to some visitors at my school. it's been a busy week, sorry if i was slow before.

---

אָרַח

Sure it does. When one relents, one can easilly express remorse in doing so without "sinning" in the process so as to need to "repent" from it. And even if God is sorry for creating man, and even if he admits that he made a mistake, it still doesn't mean that he's "repenting".I think the NIV captures this concept better by translating Genesis 6:6 as... I agree with you that the Lord is portrayed as being sorry for having made man, but I would still be cautious about translating it as repenting. He seems to be deeply grieved about the how man has fallen from his love -- but even then he displays mercy in relenting from destroying all of humanity. Yes, I think God sees a glimmer of hope in man. My 6 year old is already outdoing me in math. But to answer your question, I'd be very proud of them, and I am very proud of my boys. My oldest boy is autistic and he works very hard to accomplish the few things he can accomplish. I congradulate both of my boys in proportion to what they can individually accomplish. If I were to hold Blake accountable to the same degree that Cameron can achieve, then I would be a real asshole. As it is, both boys shine within their own levels quite remarkably. No. If I became jealous of the acheivements of my own children, then I would be a real dickhead. Consequently, I don't see in the Scriptures where God is jealous of the acheivements of his own children. Its seem to be better understood that God is jealous of when "false gods" try to claim his children as their own. Yes, and why is this so important?Expressing remorse and changing one's mind is not the same thing as sinning and repenting. In my opinion God has expressed moments where he has been deeply grieved by creating humanity. But this doesn't mean he has "sinned" in the process to the point that he needs to repent. To some extent I agree with this statement, noting our differences in opinion regarding the "immediacy" of Adam and Eve's death. Are you sure about that? It means, in my opinion, exactly what I've been saying above in regards to the idea of God expressing remorse and relenting from totally destroying us: God doesn't sin. And if God doesn't sin, then he doesn't need to repent like we do. Exactly. God IS the law -- and if he ever ceases to be the law, then he also ceases to be God. Sure he does. Whenever God makes a covenant he is setting the parameters within which those he has chosen must act. If they fail to act a certain way, then God is not held accoutable to perform his duties. However, if one upholds the law then God is held accountable to fulfill his duties in response to their faithfulness. In other words, God is held accountable to the contracts he makes.I suppose one look at this in the same way one would ask the question: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? My simple answer to this question is, "No, God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it." God is not above himself -- he is held accountable to himself -- and he will cease to exist if he ever fails to live up to his own potential.Some passages say that God cannot look upon the face of sin. To be fair, I'm not sure if he is unwilling or incapable of doing so.Some would suggest that he is simply unwilling to do so due to justice -- because basically people deserve it.Others would suggest he is incapable of doing so by his "very good" nature -- because looking upon it would cause him to be evil.I'm strongly in favor of the second position personally.Other passages seem to say that God will discover sins by searching them out -- which begs the question, why would an omniscient God need to "search out" anything if he already knows everything?It also bring up another question too: why would God need angels if he was already omniscient and omnipresent?It seems to me that God would percieve evil as an inperceptible "void" that he cannot see into. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be aware of a person who "sins" for lack of better words. Rather, as his love radiates otuward. it would be like a radar signal bouncing off all things good on both a phsycial and spiritual level.For example, even though he wouldn't know the sinful thoughts -- he would know that their body is physcially there, and that they are feeling sad, happy, angry, etc.Plus, as people pray to him (and I think he hears all prayers, not just Christian ones), he would filter out the "sin" to get a better grasp of what's going on.In some cases, some prayers may come through severely distorted. For example, if the prayer is directed to another divinity, he probably wouldn't necessarily hear the part the blasphemed his own name by invoking a "false god" -- but he could still decipher at least those parts of the meassege that didn't sin against him. I suppose it depends on how much the "false god" is integrated into the wording of the prayer. Some messaes may come through so totally garbled that they are basically meaningless..."help...pain...mother...did not...cancer..."In my opinion, God is omnibenevelent -- but not necessarilly omniscient or omnipresent (at least within the universe). However, I do beleive him to be omniscient and omnipresent to all things good. This is to say, although "slightly limited", he still has an infinite amount of good knowledge and good presence within things that are not contrary to his existence or purpose. The mere concept that God would give us a free-will seems to indicate -- from my Judeo-Christian background -- that God willingly and lovingly relinquished some degree of control over things so that people could have free-will. I suppose one could say that our very existence leads to God's humiliation -- and that he did this of his own free-will out of love.Summing this up, I simply believe he's omnibenevelant to the point that he's not aware of evil. Either evil doesn't exist to him, or maybe his presense destroys evil (and thus he keeps at a distance for our safety?).What I think is this: if God even thinks of evil, then he is partly evil -- which undermines his omnibenevelence. To me his omnibenevelance is more important than his omnipotence or omnipresence.Let's face it: God can't be omnipotent if he desires for people to not kill -- and yet we are able to kill. Clearly, his desires are not being fulfilled -- at least as far as we're able to determine.It is very important to note that I'm not saying he's powerless to act. Many tracts in the Scriptures clearly describe some magnificient acts on his part when he decides to take action -- and I personally have no doubt that those actions described in the Scriptures are generally real. I guess my point is that his willingness to give us a free-will seems to undermine his omnipotence -- but it was his choice in the first place to submit himself to our existence.I guess I picture omnipotence being in total control of everything. Since things happen that do not jive well with God's plans (from my own Judeo-Christian perspective -- such as murder, stealing, lying etc, etc), it seems as though he has given up some of his omnipotence in order to let us have a free-will.I could be wrong but it makes sense to me. I also beleive that many people get confused by this paradox because they're definition of all-powerful is perhaps different from his definition. I believe that the ability to genuinnely forgive and really love your enemies is the most powerful and perplexing force humanity has ever faced. People just don't know what to do when they strike someone, and the person turns around and turns the other cheek. True, they might continue hurting them, but it totally blows their mind if they have any sense whatsoever.This is to say, I think that the ability to forgive others is what truly constitutes an all-powerful act. Transforming evil into good is a most excellent thing. Destroying evil is not an all-powerful act because evil has a tendency to destroy itself without God having to act at all. In short, anyone can do that. And wherever forgiveness happens, I think God is responsible by the Holy Spirit.Also, although I don't think he's omnipotent (as carefully desribed above), I do believe he is omnibenevelent and also eternal. My understanding seems to lead me in the direction that he is eternally good without measure -- and that not even the thought of evil could enter his mind. His awareness of evil would rather be by virtue of the absense of his presence in a particular area.When he encounters an area void of his presence, I think he sends his angels in to see what's going on -- and listens to the prayers of those who are aware of what's going on. I really think in more ways than one that God really needs to hear from us.This is all my own belief of course. I'm not saying that anyone has to accept it. Hmmm...could you exlain this further?I've always been curious about Einstein's question: Interestingly, if God indeed already knows the future, then technically speaking, God didn't really have a choice did he?If you've ever read Watchmen published by DC, then you might be familiar with Dr. Manhatten -- the all-knowing, watchmaker who is unable to change the future he's already seen. I haven't finished reading the series yet, but I think I know where the storyline is going.Similarly, some have suggested that God is akin to an eternally good spiritual automation that created man with a free-will so that he could learn how to be alive vicariously through humanity -- he created man so that he could be truly alive. If we are indeed created in God's image, then the answers to these questions should be self-evident. Just because something is "holy", doesn't mean that we don't have access to it. Just because something is "set apart" from us doesn't mean that we cannot reach out for it.But you do raise some interesting points.As Chris Rohhman has pointed out, many have thought about this before. The distinction between the personal and the impersonal God is very complex -- with the tension being due to the impossibility of both extremes.A wholly personal God, accessible in purely human terms, would appear to be insufficiently divine.however...An entirely impersonal deity would be equally difficult to comprehend as well.In this regard, most religions conceive of God as both personal and impersonal.Again, as Chris Rohhman has noted, when one adds the ideas of immanence and transcendance, the issues become even more difficult to reconcile.God as active in nature or outside it, implicated in the world and its developmentor a mystery beyond human comprehension -- are similar to the personal/impersonal contrast.Here, too, neither extreme is wholly embraced in practice, since we could have no understanding of a God who is either utterlyseparate from us and the world or so close and penetrating as to dissolve into experience.More often than not, these apparently contradictory terms coexist within one conception of God, both involved with us and above us. I do. But this is another area of discourse altogether. Hmmm... Hmmm... Well...if you're already convinced that the book is a forgery, then I guess there's really not much else for us to discuss then. We're on totally different playing fields here in regards to how we feel the Scriptures were divinely inspired. I suspect the rest of the discussion will rarely amount to nothing more than interesting semantics -- but I do thank you for adressing my previous thoughts.

Tradition has it written by Moses.. however, modern scholarship has Genesis having a number of differnt writers, based on the syntax, language used and style of writing.

that's fine. they're more appealing because they appear to be true. just like the snake's appears to be true. it is, in some respect. the point however, is that we should follow god however true the adversaries position may be. agreed. one of the views of the "she's my sister!" stories in genesis is that it's ok it lie when your life is in danger. but try and make your lies as close to the truth as you can. also agreed. i think god is very forgiving and understanding for certain things, and a lot less forgiving of others. does he forgive everything, do you think? i don't know, personally. technically speaking, he didn't. just like technically, sarah WAS abraham's sister. and just the same as "don't drink that orange. you'll die!" is also technically true. one interpretation of the abraham-isaac sacrifice story (possibly my own idea, but i'd be suprised if no one thought of it before) is that abraham actually failed god's test of faith, and that he was supposed to question god. i can explain more if you like, but it's just an idea, really, to toy with.but questioning, and challenging are different things, in the respect i meant "challenge." maybe adam and eve were supposed to come back to god and say "this snake told us that we wouldn't really die, but we'd be more like you, is that true god?" instead of just obeying the snake. let me reword my question. according to the bible, did they break a commandment?i think you should also do a little research on bab-el in particular, becuase it's a real place. nebuchadnezzar (heard of him?) finished it in 623 bc, which was just before the hebrew exile. there's a wonderful inscription on it too. genesis, is basically challenging nebuchadnezzar by bringing up the older legend. the bible's report is somewhat true. bab-el was an ancient tower (ziggurat) that had failed to be completed, and the story in gen 11 is almost the same as the babylonian legend regarding it. many people over the years tried to rebuild it, and failed. the difference between the actual babylonian legend and the hebrew one is that bab-el ("door/ladder of the gods," el having the same meaning in hebrew) in babylonian SOUNDS LIKE balal ("to confuse") in hebrew. so it's a pun.the "lucifer" taunt in isaiah is also probably playing of bab-el, describing nebuchadnezzar falling from his throne in the heavens. sure, but on what authority can i say "god can't do" something? ok. i believe in an all powerful god. faith was referencing another post that i made where i said that even if demons are real, i don't believe in them. i was able to explain a little more here. if god tells us not to do something that he does, according to faith, that would make him a hypocrite. if god tells us not to lie, and god lies, that makes him a hypocrite. if god tells us not to kill, and then kills, that makes him a hypocrite. if god tells us not to covet, and god covets, that makes him a hypocrite.i'm merely saying that i don't agree with this logic. god is the larger. he tells us what to do. but he can do whatever he likes. is god forgetful? certainly would fit with the two different sets of commandments. i don't see that at all. and maybe inside. but there are evidently things in the garden that are not in the outside world. like the two trees. sure, otherwise why put a tree called "life" there? however. i'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that god didn't have a plan. and that maybe i only believe god is all powerful to an extent, and that extent is our free will. (however, i'll read that link you gave me a little later)i think god gave us a choice. ok, i'll agree to that, to an extent. i still need to think about the "unique one" argument. if it refers to god, it means that god does know sin (knowing good AND evil) and that shoots down part of that argument. i think god does know both. ok, i'll agree to that too. yes, i am. but it doesn't mean i have read a good portion of the rest of it. i was commenting here on how genesis in this regard (read on its own) is inconsistent with numbers, and other various verses. well, i don't insist that. i just insist that literally, in the story, it is a snake. it could represent all kinds of things, but literally, it has to remain a snake for the punishment to make sense. it's the same word in genesis and numbers. feel free to check, of course. no, it doesn't fit. if god is not sorry he created man, there is no reason to destroy man, and unmake creation. god can relent all he wants, but that word does not fit into the sentence. "god relented that he had made man." doesn't work. it says that it greived god, to his heart. it's a standard example. i'll explain below. not quite. christ speaks of doing something somewhat singular. this is saying do not do something, and then the very next verse saying the exact opposite, and to do that same something. the words are all the same. there is a contradiction there.the simplest answer is that one verse is replying to one before it. proverbs is a collection of proverbs, not god's personal advise for us on how to live our lives. they're old sayings, chestnuts. and one seems to be the traditional reply to the other.if i were respond to your post, calling you a fool, and said "don't respond to crackpots in their own terms, or you'll become crazy yourself" the obvious reply from you or others is "yes, respond to crackpots in their own terms. otherwise, they'll think they know what they're talking about." yes, well, i was unaware of this. i'll look into it. i don't know everything, and i still can't read hebrew. but i'm working on that. i don't think so. it says the serpent was the smartest, which implies he was created that way. although, i concede this is possible that the serpent had also eaten. but the bible never mentions it. holy just means "separate." god can lie and still be separate from us. infinite goodness... well.math question. if you have an infinite set, and you remove a finite set from it, how big is your infinite set?if god is infinitely good, and commits some finite sin, is he still infinitely good? i think god is playing in a whole nother ballpark. yes. and yes. will do.

---

אָרַח

ergot is a hallucinogen. but i see you're going there. the restriction on human life is a something the bible documents.

quote:

---

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

---

the limiting of human life (according to the bible) has nothing to do with the garden. it's more likely related the noah story. of course, it's also contradicted by gen 11. shem lives to be 600, and his son lives about the same. etc. apparently.i doubt the story is actually recording a hallucinogenic experience, though. it's too much a traditionalized story, with too much intent of explaining other things. no. i see very little biblical reference to fallen angels. and THIS is not one of them:

quote:

---

Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him:

---

it uses that imagery, sort of, yes. i don't agree with this at all. i think god is very much aware of everything. how can he know us, if he can't look at evil? we do evil, and our hearts are sometimes wicked. how could god have dealt with pharaoh? or anyone? one might note a few things:
1. "the adversary" (ha satan) is not in the story. his image is never equated with a serpent, except in revelation (written much, much later) and even then it's a different serpent. a much bigger one.
2. "the adversary" describes his position. angels are named by their function. his job is to test the hearts of men.now, the theme of a test *IS* in gen 3. and the serpent, if he were an angel, would be named "satan." in fact, calling him "satan" as a title is even appropriat, since the serpent is tempting or testing man. so if it's satan -- the angel/fallen angel/demon/etc -- he IS doing his job, and very well i might add. symbolic, maybe. but it doesn't indicate the presence of the late-judeochristian satan. literally, the "eating dust" seems to refer to licking the ground, the way snakes smell. and the crawling on the belly describes the way snakes move. this story is basically an explanation of what makes a snake a snake. i mean, they call it a snake, and then describe a snake. it's a snake.symbolically, it could mean anything. it probably does apply to other snake-cult religions. but they're not portraying the snake as a deity, demi-god, son of god, angel, fallen angel, demon, or anything other than a snake. interesting, yes. but i think it is god's will for us to have satan around. he performs tests for god. he's also a rather later appearance in the bible. he appears sometime between samuel and chronicles. look:

quote:

---

2Sa 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.

---

numbering israel, of course, is a sin. it's defying god's will. in this context. apparently in numbers it's fine.

quote:

---

2Sa 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

---

it's a sin because of this:

quote:

---

Gen 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered.

​

Gen 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

---

so according to samuel, the lord himself made david sin. when chronicles tell this story, it fixes this inconsistency, since it's a BIG one.

quote:

---

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

---

the traditional reading for thousands of years has been that satan does god's dirty work, testing men, etc. had the author of chronicles rewritten genesis, we might see satan asking abraham to sacrifice isaac to the lord, or satan visit sodom to test the city before its destruction.

---

אָרַח

what of "repent" connotates sin? i think this is a translation issue. in hebrew, there's just one word. repentance just means you're sorry. it doesn't mean you've sinned, like it seems to modern english.who would god repent TO? who would he have sinned against? he's god. there's no one above him. but he can still repent, in the aspect of being greived to his heart over something he feels is a mistake. according to genesis.numbers is simply saying that god doesn't have to apologize to us. genesis is simply saying that god thought he'd made a mistake.

quote:

---

Genesis 6:6 JPS

​

And the LORD regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened.

---

same difference, really. but the word used is still one translated "repent" elsewhere. even in numbers. they mean the same thing. as well you should be. but if you were jealous of their achievements, would you be a good father? of you struck them because they did something that challenged your abilities as a man, would you be a good father? except in genesis 11. there's no connotation of "other gods" unless one reads on in. on the simplest, literal level, that aspect is not there. actually, they are. like i pointed out, it's the same word. repenting after you've sinned is basically just saying you're sorry, and then trying to turn it around. both express the idea of doing something wrong, acknowledging it, and then fixing it. and that's exactly what god does in gen 6, isn't it? repentance need not relate to sin, as in sin of man against god. god has nothing and no one to sin against. just himself. yet, apparently, he can still do something he later considers wrong. and that considering of wrongness is repenting. moved your bold. but the conditions for the law have already been met: he already saved the israelites from egypt. it is a singular act they owe him for. not a continued expectation from god. it's not an even treaty at all. unwilling. which passages? why did god call for adam and eve in the garden? did he not know where they were? had they successfully hid from god? i think the idea that god cannot see evil is just plain silly. sorry to be blunt there.

quote:

---

Psa 64:5 They encourage themselves [in] an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?

​

Psa 64:7 But God shall shoot at them [with] an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded.

---

quote:

---

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

---

quote:

---

Num 14:35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.

---

quote:

---

Deu 29:21 And the LORD shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law:

---

quote:

---

Deu 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt [yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

---

quote:

---

Jdg 2:11 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:

​

Jdg 3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.

​

Jdg 3:12 And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the LORD.

​

Jdg 4:1 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead.

​

Jdg 6:1 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years.

​

etc (the book is downright full of "evil in the sight of the lord")

---

quote:

---

1Sa 15:19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?

---

quote:

---

2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 11:6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as [did] David his father.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 16:25 But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that [were] before him.

​

etc. in factm any reference from kings or chronicles regarding the sin of jeroboam

---

quote:

---

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose [that] wherein I delighted not.

---

quote:

---

Jer 7:30 For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it.

---

and the idea that the lord is incapable of thinking evil, creating evil, or using evil (or being sorry for it) is also silly:

quote:

---

Exd 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

---

quote:

---

Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

---

quote:

---

Jos 23:15 Therefore it shall come to pass, [that] as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

---

quote:

---

Jdg 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

---

quote:

---

1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
1Sa 16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

​

etc. chapters 16-19 or so.

---

quote:

---

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

---

quote:

---

2Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 9:9 And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, [and] him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,

---

quote:

---

1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

---

quote:

---

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

---

quote:

---

Jer 4:6 Set up the standard toward Zion: retire, stay not: for I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.

---

quote:

---

Jer 6:19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, [even] the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.

​

Jer 11:11 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.

​

Jer 11:17 For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

​

Jer 11:23 And there shall be no remnant of them: for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth, [even] the year of their visitation.

​

Jer 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

​

Jer 19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

​

Jer 23:2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.

​

Jer 23:12 Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery [ways] in the darkness: they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I will bring evil upon them, [even] the year of their visitation, saith the LORD.

​

Jer 25:29 For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the LORD of hosts.

​

Jer 26:13 Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

​

etc

---

quote:

---

Lam 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

---

[qupte]Eze 5:16 When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for [their] destruction, [and] which I will send to destroy you: and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread:Eze 5:17 So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I the LORD have spoken [it].Eze 6:10 And they shall know that I [am] the LORD, [and that] I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them.[/quote]

quote:

---

Dan 9:14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God [is] righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.

---

quote:

---

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

---

quote:

---

Amo 9:4 And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

---

quote:

---

Mic 1:12 For the inhabitant of Maroth waited carefully for good: but evil came down from the LORD unto the gate of Jerusalem.

---

now, in support of your opinion, we have one reading of one verse verse, nearest as i can tell (i just looked through every "evil" reference.

quote:

---

Hab 1:13 [Thou art] of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, [and] holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth [the man that is] more righteous than he?

---

so basically, i think that view is nearly completely unbiblical. the bible seems to support god not only seeing, but doing (or at least USING evil). why would god need man? why would god need anything?i think he's lonely, personally. angels were sort a first-draft, so to speak. we're the current project. also. you're misunderstanding the function of angels. they're not our messengers to god, they're god's messengers to us. because god is so foreign to us, there was to be something between god and mortal humans (lest we die, etc). very rarely does god himself communicate with man with his physical presence. only (possibly) in genesis, and to moses. nearly everywhere else, it's angels, or visions. yes, i agree, i think. more likely the second. i do think, i think, that maybe god gives up some omnipotence by allowing free-will. i think this is a very kind gesture of god. similarly, god COULD be omnipotent. he just chooses not to be. god CAN lie, he just chooses not to. god CAN do evil, he just (usually) chooses not to (and if he does, he works it for good). interesting. not sure if i agree or not. i think god gave us free will to be like him. i don't think he learned free will from us. i think a sense of the reason for creation is given very early in genesis. god sounds almost sympathetic to mean when he says "it is not good for man to be alone."god recognizes that something is not right in his creation. like god, adam has a bunch of things under him, the animals. but like god, there is no suited mate. what's good for adam may be what's good for god. like i said, i think god's lonely. i think that god has some way to relate to us, but that we can never really totally understand him on this level. not totally.

quote:

---

Deu 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted [him] in Massah.

---

jesus quotes this passage, btw. i think that's inspired. don't test god. the book's a forgery, and nearly completely un-needed (it repeats other texts for the most part, much like chronicles). but there's still something of value in it. i expressed this to faith earlier. part of my belief in god allowing and even using evil is that he works good through the evil of others. and so the evil of this forgery -- used as a weapon during the civil war between judah and israel, to accuse israel of idolatry and having a temple in the wrong place -- contains something good, of worth, and from god.i think a god who works good in the evil of others is more powerful than a god who doesn't even see evil.

---

אָרַח