The First Questions In The Bible

According to the NKJV version of the Bible, these were the first questions ever asked in the Bible:1) (serpent asks Eve) Gen 3:1
"Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"2)(God questions Adam and Eve) Gen 3:8-118 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"Is it significant that the serpent was allowed to ask the first question? Were we meant to question God from the very first day?In other words, was the entire scenario meant to happen?Faith/Belief

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

We all know what you're looking for. You want someone to tell you, "no, we aren't supposed to question God. We are supposed to accept every puerile idea we have about Him on a basis of pure blind faith. We are meant to do this because, in all honesty, it's the easiest way to do it, requires the least amount of effort, and backs up ever crazy-ass thing we do with plenty of excuses and blame-positing." But really, now, climb out of your silliness chair. You've said it yourself many times, that these words of Genesis are merely stories. Now, granted you were just reciting what everyone else had been telling you in an attempt to make yourself appear insightful, but perhaps you could also take your own repetition to heart and not try to put so much weight on these stories.Unless we are to read the deeper meaning of books like the Odyssey and assume we are always to take the scenic route home. If saying yes will get you to finally throw out your inane impressions of God and start questioning the nature of what you believe, then indeed it was all planned from the get-go.Jon Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

Jon,Per the rules: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.I don't consider your post to be respectful or truly addressing the issues of the topic. This thread isn't about Phat. It is in the Bible Study forum, please keep that in mind if you continue to participate.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

No, yes, and yes. I hope this post is more on-topic.Regards Phriend,
Jon

The first woman was deceived into eating the the forbidden fruit.The first man chose to eat the fruit and die with the first woman.Was it supposed to happen? NO.Did God know it was going to happen? YES. The only way God could declare the end from the beginning was if He saw everything that happened.Does that mean God made it happen? NO.Does that mean God allowed it to happen? YES.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well, it didn't "happen". (The talking snake should be your first clue.) It's a story, so yes, it is significant. It sets the scene for the rest of the story - the story of human creatures who question our God. It doesn't matter what was "meant". The fact is we do question, we always have and, hopefully, we always will.Some people try to blame the poor snake for "why" we question but the text doesn't support that interpretation. The snake asked an honest question and that question made Eve think.Thinking is a good thing.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Many say that genesis is in fact, literal. Many others say that it is a literary parable. Lets assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the story is a parable.....We are still left with God asking "Who told you you were naked?"Some would argue that humanity does not actually hear from God directly, but merely writes about what we think God may be saying.So when God asks this question, we have several possible answers:
1) He was getting them to admit that they listened to a snake (or to themselves)
2) He was implying that He certainly never told them they were naked.
3) (My interpretation) He was asking a deeper symbolic question (or rather the literature speaks to me this way) in that the question was basically this:Who told you you lacked anything?
Who told you that you were not covered?The symbolism of the story is, in my opinion, a loss of relationship.
Adam and Eve saw that they were naked because they initiated what was and is a prime characteristic of human behavior: They compared themselves to each other and to an arbitrary competitive construct in the human psyche.They ceased allowing God to tell them who they were.As a species, we have a unique obsession with continually comparing ourselves to each other and comparing others. We watch sports because we want to see one team be better than another team.We have reality shows that seek to crown the best bachelor. The longest survivor. The best chef.We rate ourselves endlessly, comparing ourselves against each other.I believe Gods question was to allow us to ask ourselves why we tell ourselves certain things.

What loss of a relationship?Before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge the relationship was about the same relationship one might have with a squid or a slug. Adam and Eve were just another animal. Huh? Where is that in the story?It looks more like you are trying to twist the story to fit YOUR needs then to read what is really there.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1.) The squid or the slug were not mentioned as the last beings
created.2.) Only when man was created did God get so intimately involved
and hold a council that Man should be created in the image of God.3.) God did not commit to the slug or the squid to have dominion over
all the other animals.4.) God did not see what the slug or squid would name all the other
animals.5.) God did not rest after creating the slug or squid, signifying that
He had obtained something of a completion of His work.6.) God did not speak any specific instructions to the squid or slug
as He did to man.7.) God did not tranfer the squid or slug into the garden of Eden.
At least no specific mention informs us that the garden of Eden
was prepared for the slug.8.) God did not come looking for the squid or slug with a gentle "Where are you?" after things went wrong.10.) There is nothing suggesting that the tree of life was put into the garden for the slug or squid.11.) If you personally feel that your relationship with God is no better than that of a slug or a sguid you seemed to have missed most of the point of the Bible somehow.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you have a point?You can't even keep the stories straight. The story about man created in God's image is not even part of the story of the Garden of Eden.Sure Adam and Eve were just animals, just as a sheep dog is sent out to tend the flock.And folk certainly always look for Lassie when she gets lost.And what my relationship happens to be is totally irrelevant to the story.Are you ever going to post something that has any relevance or importance?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I made my point jar. The point I made was that the created man's relationship with God was not of just the same as that between God and slugs and squids. That goes for before and after the taking in of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is your opinion, that it is not the same story. And I don't agree with your erroneous opinion here. If you want to say that there are two accounts in Genesis of man's beginning, I will gladly go along with that.A skillful author can join two accounts together to emphasize different aspects of the same "story" - Man's creation and beginning.The author of Genesis has joined the two accounts together to make one story. Genesis chapter 2 verses 1 through 4 are really the strong link that connects the two accounts into one story. They are coupled together by Moses.Verse 22 of chapter 3 also seems to link the accounts together.Compare: In the first account you have this: "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ..." (Gen. 1:26).And at the end of the second account you have this: "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man, has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ..." (Gen.3:22)The mention of the divine "Us" in both accounts proves that in the mind of the author they should be combined together as one story. I don't see it that way at all jar. Now man has a CONNECTION to all the other creatures created. That is certain. So in one sense he is among them.Yet Adam gives names to all the creatures. This is not insignificant. This is actually very profound. Adam assigned real meaning and interpretation to all the animals which he named.So among the other creatures both accounts of the one story of man's beginnings show him to be at the pinnacle of created beings.Now why do you want to undermine that obvious truth? What possible advantage to your understanding could you obtain by saying Adam and Eve were no more significant than the crab grass, the toad, the finch, or the squid or slug?If you want to keep a sense of humility about being a human being I think you can do that without going overboard and making nonsense from Bible interpretation. Not only both accounts of man's beginnings show man as occupying a unique position above all the creatures, but Jesus Christ confirms this. Did you catch that? Man is of more value than the birds.No, He didn't say the birds were unimportant. He didn't say the birds don't matter. He DID say that man was of more value than the birds. Man is of more value than the grass too. Genesis should have shown you that. But if you missed it, listen to Jesus on the subject.Elsewhere Christ teaches that man means more to God than the lovely lilies or the sparrows sold in the market place. So, yes, man is among the creatures. He has a connection to the animals. But at the same time he has a unique position above all the other animals.And you should ascertain that even by looking to see that no creature on the planet seems to compare with humans. It all has to do with you and I, jar. Now that's interesting. I had a similar instance of curiosity about your posts.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Uh, again jaywill, what does any of that have to do with the topic?You love to bring in irrelevant, unimportant and frankly false material, but what does any of that nonsense have to do with the thread?The topic is "the first question in the Bible" and "In other words, was the entire scenario meant to happen?"Well, since the various authors of the myths, wrote them that way, then yes, questioning was part of the storyline. But we need to remember that we are analyzing fiction.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do you mean to suggest that God, Creator of all seen and unseen, has in reality never talked with Man? These so-called mythological stories are the only records we have where God talks with us.I realize that we cannot prove the stories to be true any more than I can prove to you that the aliens abducted me or that God talks to me occasionally through inner unction.To say that the myths are entirely human created negates the potential human opportunities to understand God. All we are left with is our vain and controversial attempts to understand ourselves.Its all a matter of belief, but I don't envision God as some Cosmic absentee Father who expects his young whippersnappers to grow up without Him having to show them any love.In conclusion, I would say that it is a bit of a stretch and quite bold (and even a wee bit arrogant) to assume that the Bible is entirely a work of fiction.There are some literary moments where human authors seek to explain and understand God as they know Him. It is vain to assert that nobody knows God, just because some of us don't.

Sorry but that is illogical. A work of fiction can have an imaginary creature talking to imaginary people. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not real creatures talk to real people. I'm sorry, but is there any logic or reasoning behind those assertions? Why would a myth being human created negate "the potential human opportunities to understand God?"What do we have other than our own abilities to understand anything? Again, where did anyone say that? All I have said is that a Loving Father expects the kids to grow up. Why do you say that God MUST do stuff for you to be a loving father? Why is it always what YOU get out of the deal? Why do you want a sugardaddy skydaddy? Fine, when you find someone who says that the Bible is entirely a work of fiction, please point that out. What does "as they know him" mean? Marshall Applewhite knew God. Charles Manson knew God.The question is not whether someone does know God, but "How do you know it is God?" How do you test God?Unless someone can explain how they know, they have nothing except a bare unsupported assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion