- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
When God says "One of us", who might the rest of "us" be?
Just a stranger on a bus.
When God says "One of us", who might the rest of "us" be?
You're looking at the story as scripture, and scripture always goes hand-in-hand with commentary and interpretation from people learned in, well, scripture. I'm reading a story, and reading only what the story says.
Adam and Eve were warned not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or they would die. At that point there was no mention of the tree of life, it wasn't until after they'd got the knowledge, after they'd became 'as gods', that eating from the tree of life became a threat. Can there be any other reading than that they were immortal before they acquired the knowledge of good and evil? Now they had the knowledge, so now they will die? They were evicted from the garden so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life, not because they disobeyed God. The garden is guarded to protect the tree of life.
That bolded part is important because so many people want to say that disobedience was the original sin but the Bible says clearly that preventing them eating from the other tree was what got them evicted from the garden.
Adam and Eve were warned not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or they would die.
When God says "One of us", who might the rest of "us" be?
Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
But they are him, is she schizophrenic?
You're looking at the story as scripture, and scripture always goes hand-in-hand with commentary and interpretation from people learned in, well, scripture. I'm reading a story, and reading only what the story says.
Adam and Eve were warned not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or they would die. At that point there was no mention of the tree of life, it wasn't until after they'd got the knowledge, after they'd became 'as gods', that eating from the tree of life became a threat. Can there be any other reading than that they were immortal before they acquired the knowledge of good and evil? Now they had the knowledge, so now they will die? They were evicted from the garden so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life, not because they disobeyed God. The garden is guarded to protect the tree of life.
That bolded part is important because so many people want to say that disobedience was the original sin but the Bible says clearly that preventing them eating from the other tree was what got them evicted from the garden.
As I've said, to me this is a story, a creation myth, and maybe the best story about the creation of mankind that I've encountered but certainly not literal truth. There's a moral and allegories in the story that can be instructive to anyone who reads them with the right attitude.
Adam and Eve didn't physically die after they ate from it......in fact, Adam lived until the age of 930 years.
Obviously, God was referring to spiritual death.
Furthermore, why would God put cherubims to guard the Tree of Life to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from it, if they were already immortal to begin with?
On those bases, no....they may've been created in the image of God, but they were not created immortal.
That's the problem!
Of course I'm reading it as the Scripture.....after all, it's a Scripture for us Christians!
You insist to read and understand it as you would the "Iliad" - thus you dismiss the interpretations from scholars specializing in the studies of the Scripture!
Of course, we wouldn't be on the same page!
All this is pointless...... unless you respond with the view that Genesis is part of the Scripture!
Btw....
Sin is - in a nutshell - disobedience to God.
Righteousness is - in a nutshell - obedience to God.
Wow - that is the most enlightened thing that I have ever seen you post.Trees in the Bible sometimes represent people, i.e. Daniel 4:22 -
"Your Majesty, you are that tree! You have become great and strong; your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the earth."
I've thought a few times that could mean that the 'tree of life' represents Jesus, who gives life (John 14:6, etc.). But I never could figure out a good candidate for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
That's not obvious to me. What it says to me is had they not eaten the forbidden fruit they would not have died.
They were no longer immortal, so the tree of life had to be guarded. They were not told to not eat from the tree of life until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There would be no reason to deny an immortal being the fruit from the tree of life.
This may sound kind of like trivial nit-picking but it leads to what may be the defining principle of Christianity- the idea of original sin and redemption. Without this story Christ is just another Jewish prophet. I see nothing in the story of the Garden of Eden that says Adam and Eve were expelled to punish them. God said they were sent out and the way back guarded to protect the tree of life. And I don't see how Adam and Eve were capable of sin before they ate the fruit. Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.
Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.
We don't need God's inspiration to tell us about good and evil. We know because we took the knowledge
This is true.
Sorry, I can't say that the story of the creation and the Garden of Eden is anything more than a creation myth. It's a damned good one, as I said, and anyone who goes to it with the right frame of mind will probably learn something, but a myth, still. Divinely inspired? Maybe all mythology is! I'm pretty sure I know what those 'scholars' would think of that idea, though.
Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.
We don't need God's inspiration to tell us about good and evil. We know because we took the knowledge
Understanding is elusive to you, that's understandable. Being a non-believer, it will remain elusive....unless God intervenes now. That has been explained already.
They have a concept of goodness (they were surrounded with it by God's creation}. Each creation ended with...."and God saw it was good."
They also have the concept that they have to obey God. This was evident in Eve's response to the serpent: "....but He did say we are not to eat from that tree." That word, "but," is significant!
Therefore, they do have a concept of wrong - which is, disobedience to God.
Eating from that fruit really opened their eyes to evil. They actually committed it.
They saw their own sin! Thus the feeling of guilt was immediate!
They felt guilty right away after eating the fruit. They saw they were naked, and covered themselves up.
Their act was the first act of disobedience.
Finally!
Now you're saying.....the Adam and Eve narrative wasn't a myth after all!
Okay....we're making progress here.....a little shuffling step at a time.
It's excruciatingly like pulling teeth though....but we're getting there....
You are leaving out the rest of the Bible and that story does NOT end in Genesis 3 as you are presenting it.On this basis, are we still talking about what the story actually says or are we done here?
You are leaving out the rest of the Bible and that story does NOT end in Genesis 3 as you are presenting it.
So the discussion is finished because you are limiting the story.
You put it into a "Religious Discussions" board but then you want to cut out the religion of it.
It is still impressive that you would get such great insight into that story when you do cut out the religion and the rest of the Bible.
I just wish that we all could do both and see the bigger story and its message = Post # 20
It is completely wrong to view the knowledge of good and bad (evil) as being the same as the knowledge of right and wrong because those are completely different kinds of knowledge.Also, even when you take it literally.... if it's the tree of knowledge that gave mankind the concept of good and evil (because they ate from the tree).....well, who created the tree of knowledge? God.
Therefore, that also supports my stance that, without God, mankind wouldn't have the concept of right and wrong.
Well, let's stop shuffling and pulling teeth, then.
The story's a myth. It was never meant to be taken literally, or whence came the people in Nod, where Cain found a wife? Did God create them, too? Are they also guilty of Adam and Eve's sin?
People evolved from a distant African ancestor who lived, shortly and precariously, a hand-to-mouth existence, who never planted a seed or herded a goat and never made a sacrifice to God. Over centuries and umpteen generations the descendants of that creature looked up at the stars and made stories to tell around the fire. Like all such groups those people invented a God, made Him in their image, and had Him return the favour by creating their tribe with his own hands, making their tribe special. Now, more centuries and more generations later, the story has really gotten legs and instead of just telling about how our tribe was created by God, some people say that all people were created in the story. And that's all fine and dandy until people forget that it's just a story. Then things can get weird, and after weird things can get ugly.
On this basis, are we still talking about what the story actually says or are we done here?
It is completely wrong to view the knowledge of good and bad (evil) as being the same as the knowledge of right and wrong because those are completely different kinds of knowledge.
Many people say that it is okay to lie even when they know it is wrong because they think if a lie (a wrong) can be used to do good or to use against what they view as "bad" then that poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" will overrule the knowledge of right and wrong.
Those are NOT the same thing and are NOT synonymous.
We're discussing how mankind got the concept of good and bad.
Whether it's taken literally or not, it still boils down to the fact that: without God we wouldn't have a concept of good and bad.
After all, GOD CREATED THE TREE, TOO! Therefore, without God, there wouldn't be the tree from which you "took the knowledge" from!
That's your own opinion!
You're bringing in macro-evolution - mitochondrial eve and out-of-africa theory - that's merely speculation and could very well be the myth!
Check out the last few pages from this thread. Especially the article from James Tour (hign-ranking chemist).
No scientist actually understands evolution - and that include nobel prize winners! Start here and read on.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...volution-and-theory-evolution-evidence-5.html
So if you're now using evolution as your argument, I guess we're done.
Evolution was always here. I've never pretended that the story in Genesis was anything but a fiction and I only bring it up now to clarify my position as you seemed to think I was coming around to believing the Bible story.
But yeah, I guess we're done. An omniscient God is a very useful device. Cheers.
No.In the Biblical sense - there's not much difference.
What Does the Bible Say About Right And Wrong?
In Ethics, what is right has something to do with compliance to rules and regulations.
It's also defined as that which is just, moral and proper (which is also what is meant by goodness in the Bible). Thus, the term....righteousness.
No.
When people (not the Bible and not God but people) use the poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" to decide what is right or wrong then that decision is being perverted.
The two sets of opposites are not the same kind of knowledge.
"Good and bad" are NOT the same as "right and wrong".
The knowledge of right and wrong makes a person to have strong integrity, while the "knowledge of good and bad" is still poison to people today.
It was poisoned knowledge in the beginning, and it is still poisoned knowledge ever after.