Before I state the question, I want to state a few ground rules for my thread. As I realize this subject is a sensitive one, first and foremost, I expect ALL who post to remain respectful and on subject. I've had this question for over a decade, and I have even been kicked out and banished from multiple churches for this, and other questions. I do want some sort of logic out of this, so don't mistake this for stirring trouble, as it is often mistaken for doing so. Without further ado:
Early in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are told that they may eat of the fruit of any tree in the Garden of Eden, except The Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The punishment threatened is that they will surely die. Satan takes the form of a Serpent, denies that they will die, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. She does, brings it to Adam, convinces him to also eat the fruit, and the rest is history. We're all born into sin thereafter, Jesus has to be sent to die for our sins, the ultimate sacrifice, allowing us all a path into heaven.
That being stated as premise, here's my immediate concern: If both Adam and Eve were ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating the fruit, how was she able to discern God's truth from the Serpent's lie without eating the fruit?
My opinion is this: It's a catch 22, there's no way to know until it's too late. By the time she has the knowledge to make an informed decision about the fruit, she has already been damned.
If someone has an answer to whether or not Eve was given the tools to make that decision, or if Eve was supposed to just take God's word on it, please let me know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig By Rivenor
Avatar by DarkNightCavalier
You will not remember my face, your name, or your journey, but in the end...
You will accede my every command.
It's a fairy tale told about the beginning of the world to explain how the world came to be and we're all mortal. The "born into sin" bit was a Catholic addition, I believe.
As to your catch 22, I disagree. As the story goes, they were told "don't eat that tree's fruit." Whether the snake was lying or not, they chose to disobey.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
As to your catch 22, I disagree. As the story goes, they were told "don't eat that tree's fruit." Whether the snake was lying or not, they chose to disobey.
How would you know that obeying is good and disobeying is bad without knowledge of good and evil?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
How would you know that obeying is good and disobeying is bad without knowledge of good and evil?
Here's how I understand it: This story was not written in English, so there is the distinct possibility that there is misunderstanding in the translation (which is what I think is happening here). The Hebrew word da'ath that is translated here as "knowledge" in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil implies more than an understanding of intellectual facts. It means a "cunning," that includes willing participation in. For example, both an earthbound physicist and Neil Armstrong have knowledge about the weaker gravity of the moon, only Mr. Armstrong would have da'ath knowledge. In telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, God gave them enough information about evil to not participate in it, just the same as having knowledge of the harmful effects of cocaine use is enough to make an informed decision not to use cocaine. One does not need to use cocaine (obtain da'ath knowledge) to make an informed decision. They presumably would have already had da'ath knowledge of good, being in the presence of God, but God had warned them about the dangers and consequences of participation in both good (which they already had) and evil (of which they had no experience).
The "born into sin" bit was a Catholic addition, I believe.
It may or may not have been a Catholic who came up with the terms "born into sin," but it is a phrase meant to make some things that Christianity holds true a little more understandable. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23; "All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one," Psalm 14:3 (emphasis mine). It's a tough thing to deal with, but everyone is born with a bent toward selfishness. That's what the "born into sin" belief is supposed to get across.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
Now this leads to another question - is it morally right for God to have lied to Adam and Eve regarding the nature of the tree of da'ath?
He didn't lie.
Unless Adam and Eve are still alive somewhere, they're dead.
And so he didn't lie.
As for the actual question on hand- It's already been answered, but I just want to repeat it.
The general idea is that the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not strictly refer to good and evil. Adam and Eve already have a knowledge of what good and evil is. For example, they already know that it's a sin to disobey God's words.
Think about what eating the tree does give them. The moment Eve takes a bite, she realizes that she's naked and covers herself with leaves out of shame. Adam does the same thing once he eats. So, iirc (which I may not because it's been forever since I read Genesis and read any interpretation of it), the knowledge that the apple gives them is self-awareness and an understanding beyond that which God had already given them. Presumably, that understanding is limited only to God and certain disobedient angels.
How would you know that obeying is good and disobeying is bad without knowledge of good and evil?
Here's how I understand it: This story was not written in English, so there is the distinct possibility that there is misunderstanding in the translation (which is what I think is happening here). The Hebrew word da'ath that is translated here as "knowledge" in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil implies more than an understanding of intellectual facts. It means a "cunning," that includes willing participation in. For example, both an earthbound physicist and Neil Armstrong have knowledge about the weaker gravity of the moon, only Mr. Armstrong would have da'ath knowledge. In telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, God gave them enough information about evil to not participate in it, just the same as having knowledge of the harmful effects of cocaine use is enough to make an informed decision not to use cocaine. One does not need to use cocaine (obtain da'ath knowledge) to make an informed decision. They presumably would have already had da'ath knowledge of good, being in the presence of God, but God had warned them about the dangers and consequences of participation in both good (which they already had) and evil (of which they had no experience).
The "born into sin" bit was a Catholic addition, I believe.
It may or may not have been a Catholic who came up with the terms "born into sin," but it is a phrase meant to make some things that Christianity holds true a little more understandable. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23; "All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one," Psalm 14:3 (emphasis mine). It's a tough thing to deal with, but everyone is born with a bent toward selfishness. That's what the "born into sin" belief is supposed to get across.
Point taken. I think it opens up a lot the bible for scrutiny to make these sorts of arguments, however.
Now this leads to another question - is it morally right for God to have lied to Adam and Eve regarding the nature of the tree of da'ath?
Ignoring the fact that the whole thing is a fairy tale, it has yet to be established that He lied about the nature of the tree.
"Eat this and you'll surely die." They ate it, and they were going to die (i.e. become mortal and die much later) because of it.
What he said was: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Unless this is also a mistranslation, God is very much lying. Did they die on the same day they ate from the apple?
EDIT: On the idea of 'having knowledge' and having 'intimate knowledge': what is exactly the difference between the two, and why would only having the first not lead to the second? Moreover: let's say there is a appreciable difference between the two. Apparently the second was required not to disobey God, or they would not have done so. So the question remains: why did God withhold this apparently crucial info from them?
"Eat this and you'll surely die." They ate it, and they were going to die (i.e. become mortal and die much later) because of it.
What he said was: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Unless this is also a mistranslation, God is very much lying. Did they die on the same day they ate from the apple?
Translation issues aside; there are other places the bible states that a day in God's time is not the same as one in our own.
I've always taken it as "the day you eat this, you doom yourself to death."
Yes, but that applies equally to all parts of the bible.
No, it does not. The Gospels and Paul's letters in particular are written accounts of people of that age. They're probably embellished, but we know the authors and they have independently verifiable events in them.
The old testament is no such thing. They are an origin story passed by oral tradition until such an age that they were written down.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
"Eat this and you'll surely die." They ate it, and they were going to die (i.e. become mortal and die much later) because of it.
What he said was: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Unless this is also a mistranslation, God is very much lying. Did they die on the same day they ate from the apple?
Translation issues aside; there are other places the bible states that a day in God's time is not the same as one in our own.
I've always taken it as "the day you eat this, you doom yourself to death."
So? It is still disingenuous. If I said to you: I'll be gone until Sunday and I came back on a Wednesday saying "well, time is different for me", you'd rightfully be annoyed with me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
So? It is still disingenuous. If I said to you: I'll be gone until Sunday and I came back on a Wednesday saying "well, time is different for me", you'd rightfully be annoyed with me.
Like I said, I think it's more of a translation issue. Let's look at the 1599 Geneva Bible.
And the Lord God [s]commanded the man, saying, [t]Thou shalt eat freely of every tree of the garden,
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for [u]in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the [v]death.
The [v] footnote is this:
By this death he meaneth the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief felicity: and also that our disobedience is the cause thereof.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
The thing people should keep in mind regarding the Bible is that the thing has so many different translations that sticking to what your specific Bible says is not a good idea. Not to mention, it's not a good idea to read the Bible literally.
In any case, Dech Kaison is right. The death there does not mean a literal death (though it also does, given that Adam and Eve were functionally immortal before they ate the apple), but rather separation from God, which Christians consider a form of, if not actual, death.
To a non-believer, the Bible should act as two separate things. First, the Old Testament acts as the creation story for the Jewish religion and a repository of the history of the Jewish faith. The New Testament acts as the "creation story" for Christianity, and a collection of what is believed to be historical documents that outline the fundamental premise and evolution of the Christian faith.
To a believer, it really depends on your denomination. Many U.S. Protestant denominations no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and most churches that would be defined as fundamentalist do. I would imagine the Catholics believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I am unsure of that.
To those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then the Bible is divine. To those who do not, the Bible acts more like it does for the non-believer- a collection of the history of Judaism and Christianity and its fundamental tenets.
Calling it a fairy tale in the way Set Abominae does is, frankly speaking, insulting.
Calling it a fairy tale in the way Set Abominae does is, frankly speaking, insulting.
I'm the one that started with the use of "fairy tale" in this thread, so I'd like to own up to that and perhaps explain myself.
I don't mean it to be insulting; I mean it to be descriptive. Look at the story told in Genesis, though. We know that it's a fictional story with mystical creatures fabricated to entertain children and convey moral truths. That's a fairy tale.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Not really. It's a creation myth. I understand what you're trying to get at, but fairy tales are very different from creation myths. Just because they're both considered fiction (though obviously many people who believe in the actual religion will argue that the creation myth is real) and contain fantastical things that may or may not be meant to be allegorical or instill some sort of moral understanding does not mean they can be equated as the same things.
In any case, calling Genesis a fairy tale is not nearly as insulting as calling the Bible in its entirety a fairy tale. The former, to me at least, feels like you're undermining it for whatever purpose, but within reason. The latter just feels it's spoken by someone who has absolutely no understanding and just buys into much bull**** dogma because it's "hip".
You can dislike Christianity all you want. You can dislike the Bible all you want. But do so with some understanding of what you are criticizing. At least read the Old and New Testaments and understand its purpose/interpretation from both secular and religious scholars/how the common people understand it before you voice your own opinions.
(though obviously those who believe in the actual religion will argue that the creation myth is real)
I don't know what you mean by "actual religion" here, but I already stated I'm a Christian and I certainly won't argue that the creation myth is real. You've also already mentioned the difference between fundamentalists and otherwise, so I'm really confused here.
I understand that ancient Jews passed along in oral tradition a fabricated story of creation, with or without divine influence, that serves to convey moral truths. They eventually wrote this story down in a book which has since been translated innumerable times, and contains questionable relation to the story as originally told. You say toe-may-toe, I say "fairy tale."
Anyway, I feel like we're getting off topic. I invite you to continue this discussion via PM if you have more to say.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Before I state the question, I want to state a few ground rules for my thread. As I realize this subject is a sensitive one, first and foremost, I expect ALL who post to remain respectful and on subject. I've had this question for over a decade, and I have even been kicked out and banished from multiple churches for this, and other questions. I do want some sort of logic out of this, so don't mistake this for stirring trouble, as it is often mistaken for doing so. Without further ado:
Early in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are told that they may eat of the fruit of any tree in the Garden of Eden, except The Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The punishment threatened is that they will surely die. Satan takes the form of a Serpent, denies that they will die, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. She does, brings it to Adam, convinces him to also eat the fruit, and the rest is history. We're all born into sin thereafter, Jesus has to be sent to die for our sins, the ultimate sacrifice, allowing us all a path into heaven.
That being stated as premise, here's my immediate concern: If both Adam and Eve were ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating the fruit, how was she able to discern God's truth from the Serpent's lie without eating the fruit?
My opinion is this: It's a catch 22, there's no way to know until it's too late. By the time she has the knowledge to make an informed decision about the fruit, she has already been damned.
If someone has an answer to whether or not Eve was given the tools to make that decision, or if Eve was supposed to just take God's word on it, please let me know.
It's a good question, but a little like poking a hole in santa claus. How does Santa have time for your son's milk and cookies if by physical computation, he must exceed the speed of light and spend only miliseconds at every single house.
I don't take the book of Genesis literally though I be a Christian. Parents tell their children stories about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa claus. Likewise, I doubt any deity would say, "you are a single planet in a universe formed in a big bang, your life sustained by stellar fusion 4.6 billion years ago." to primitive human culture with no understanding of science.
Your question is easily dispatched. Eve and Adam may not have had a full comprehension of good and evil, but they perhaps knew enough that a direct command from God is significant. Knowledge of right and wrong, like all things we tend to comprehend, doesn't have to be a binary thing.
Just as children have a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong, that knowledge deepens into morality, justice, mercy, and more complex concepts.
It's possible that the fruit of the tree of knowledge may have just deepened their understanding to the point where they could be deemed "morally responsible" We don't hold young children to their crimes after all, even if they have some semblance of knowledge of right and wrong. We do hold them responsible however at some line. (basically 18 and not mentally handicapped)
However, if you want to play around with more reasons why Genesis doesn't make sense logically speaking, you should also consider
1) where did the land of Nod come from?
2) who are the Nephilum
3) where did Cain's wife come from?
4) where did water come from? not the oceans and the seas, but water.
The "born into sin" bit was a Catholic addition, I believe.
Catholicism is the earliest form of Christianity. The first pope was Simon Peter.
As to your question, Eve had tools at her disposal. She was told by and almighty.... glowy.... thing to not eat it. This may be a personal interpretation, but whenever I think of life before Eve ate the fruit as similar to sociopathy, mixed with naivete. No sense of morals, just a form of blind trust. When the serpent lied to her, she had to weight her trust in God, versus what someone new had told her. She obviously made the wrong choice and damned us all to a life of sin. Take it all with a grain of salt of course, I'm not particularly devout of a Catholic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."
-H. P. Lovecraft
Christianity existed the moment Christ had followers. As for organized Christianity, people were preaching the word of the New Testament and traveling to all nations as a unified group before there was the word "Catholicism".
2) who are the Nephilum
Nephilim are the sons of god, and daughters of men. Genesis talks about this. Presumably the mating of angels and men.
Before I state the question, I want to state a few ground rules for my thread. As I realize this subject is a sensitive one, first and foremost, I expect ALL who post to remain respectful and on subject. I've had this question for over a decade, and I have even been kicked out and banished from multiple churches for this, and other questions. I do want some sort of logic out of this, so don't mistake this for stirring trouble, as it is often mistaken for doing so. Without further ado:
Early in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are told that they may eat of the fruit of any tree in the Garden of Eden, except The Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The punishment threatened is that they will surely die. Satan takes the form of a Serpent, denies that they will die, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. She does, brings it to Adam, convinces him to also eat the fruit, and the rest is history. We're all born into sin thereafter, Jesus has to be sent to die for our sins, the ultimate sacrifice, allowing us all a path into heaven.
That being stated as premise, here's my immediate concern: If both Adam and Eve were ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating the fruit, how was she able to discern God's truth from the Serpent's lie without eating the fruit?
My opinion is this: It's a catch 22, there's no way to know until it's too late. By the time she has the knowledge to make an informed decision about the fruit, she has already been damned.
If someone has an answer to whether or not Eve was given the tools to make that decision, or if Eve was supposed to just take God's word on it, please let me know.
Well, it's more complicated than you're describing, actually:
A. The serpent is actually claiming that God is lying to Adam and Eve, so it's a matter of God's word being called into question by the serpent.
And the thing that should really blow your mind?
B. The serpent is the one telling the truth.
Yeah. It should really trouble everyone who reads it.
So the answer is the Genesis story doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. Indeed, I would argue it totally goes against Christianity. Jesus died to give us the truth and eternal life. You're trying to tell me that's reconcilable with a story about God doing everything he can to keep truth and eternal life from man? That's silly.
Ignoring the fact that the whole thing is a fairy tale, it has yet to be established that He lied about the nature of the tree.
"Eat this and you'll surely die." They ate it, and they were going to die (i.e. become mortal and die much later) because of it.
No, it's established God did lie.
Everyone buys into the argument that Adam and Eve weren't going to die. Except, this cannot be the case, because not only did God make literally all life in Eden and nothing else seems to be immortal (unless anyone knows of a plant that grows on the Earth or an animal that walks the Earth that lives forever, I think it's safe to say that Eden had both age and death), but why did God kick Adam and Eve out of Eden?
Right, because they might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.
Well, you can't become immortal if you were already immortal, now can you?
Also, why did all those horrible things happen to Adam and Eve? Because God inflicted them on them. He could have chose otherwise, he didn't.
Again, this story should trouble everyone who reads it. The serpent does tell Adam and Eve the truth. They didn't die upon eating the fruit, they merely gained knowledge that put them on the level of divinities. What does God say afterward?
Quote from Genesis 3:22-24 »
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
Nothing the serpent says is false, guys. And that's what so disturbing about this story. The serpent tells the truth, and God doesn't. This should send red flags, and yet for some reason, Christians all over the place try to act like it's not a problem even though casual observation indicates otherwise.
Despite what the majority of denominations teach, you really shouldn't take the Bible at 100% literal face value - especially the early stuff.
The majority don't teach literal face value interpretation, although whether or not that ends up being the reality of it is another story.
The problem is there's this, "Well it's 100% true, just not 100% literally true" idea which is... mind-boggling really.
Also, people, the fact that our texts are translated is not a blank check to handwave away any passage that disagrees with you just because it's in translation. If you want to say that the translation is inaccurate, you must demonstrate that it is inaccurate. That means finding the Hebrew version of Genesis and demonstrating where the nuances of Hebrew differ from the Greek/Roman/English translation we are working with.
We have the Hebrew versions of the texts, guys. You can find them by Google.
And the Lord God [s]commanded the man, saying, [t]Thou shalt eat freely of every tree of the garden,
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for [u]in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the [v]death.
Yeah, which didn't happen.
The [v] footnote is this:
By this death he meaneth the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief felicity: and also that our disobedience is the cause thereof.
You're referencing a footnote that doesn't exist in the Hebrew text? So how is it a translation error?
So? It is still disingenuous. If I said to you: I'll be gone until Sunday and I came back on a Wednesday saying "well, time is different for me", you'd rightfully be annoyed with me.
Like I said, I think it's more of a translation issue. Let's look at the 1599 Geneva Bible.
And the Lord God [s]commanded the man, saying, [t]Thou shalt eat freely of every tree of the garden,
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for [u]in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the [v]death.
The [v] footnote is this:
By this death he meaneth the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief felicity: and also that our disobedience is the cause thereof.
That's an interpretation; not what the text says. If he meant "separation from god", why didn't he say so?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Early in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are told that they may eat of the fruit of any tree in the Garden of Eden, except The Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The punishment threatened is that they will surely die. Satan takes the form of a Serpent, denies that they will die, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. She does, brings it to Adam, convinces him to also eat the fruit, and the rest is history. We're all born into sin thereafter, Jesus has to be sent to die for our sins, the ultimate sacrifice, allowing us all a path into heaven.
That being stated as premise, here's my immediate concern: If both Adam and Eve were ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating the fruit, how was she able to discern God's truth from the Serpent's lie without eating the fruit?
My opinion is this: It's a catch 22, there's no way to know until it's too late. By the time she has the knowledge to make an informed decision about the fruit, she has already been damned.
If someone has an answer to whether or not Eve was given the tools to make that decision, or if Eve was supposed to just take God's word on it, please let me know.
Avatar by DarkNightCavalier
You will not remember my face, your name, or your journey, but in the end...
You will accede my every command.
It's a fairy tale told about the beginning of the world to explain how the world came to be and we're all mortal. The "born into sin" bit was a Catholic addition, I believe.
As to your catch 22, I disagree. As the story goes, they were told "don't eat that tree's fruit." Whether the snake was lying or not, they chose to disobey.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
How would you know that obeying is good and disobeying is bad without knowledge of good and evil?
Here's how I understand it: This story was not written in English, so there is the distinct possibility that there is misunderstanding in the translation (which is what I think is happening here). The Hebrew word da'ath that is translated here as "knowledge" in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil implies more than an understanding of intellectual facts. It means a "cunning," that includes willing participation in. For example, both an earthbound physicist and Neil Armstrong have knowledge about the weaker gravity of the moon, only Mr. Armstrong would have da'ath knowledge. In telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, God gave them enough information about evil to not participate in it, just the same as having knowledge of the harmful effects of cocaine use is enough to make an informed decision not to use cocaine. One does not need to use cocaine (obtain da'ath knowledge) to make an informed decision. They presumably would have already had da'ath knowledge of good, being in the presence of God, but God had warned them about the dangers and consequences of participation in both good (which they already had) and evil (of which they had no experience).
It may or may not have been a Catholic who came up with the terms "born into sin," but it is a phrase meant to make some things that Christianity holds true a little more understandable. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23; "All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one," Psalm 14:3 (emphasis mine). It's a tough thing to deal with, but everyone is born with a bent toward selfishness. That's what the "born into sin" belief is supposed to get across.
Decks:
:symgu::simic: Momir Vig, Simic Visionary :simic::symgu:
:symb::symub: Grimgrin, Corpse-Born :symub::symb:
Ignoring the fact that the whole thing is a fairy tale, it has yet to be established that He lied about the nature of the tree.
"Eat this and you'll surely die." They ate it, and they were going to die (i.e. become mortal and die much later) because of it.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Yup... I don't think anyone - even the people that believe Adam and Eve were literally the first man and woman - think they're still alive.
So they absolutely did "surely die".
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
He didn't lie.
Unless Adam and Eve are still alive somewhere, they're dead.
And so he didn't lie.
As for the actual question on hand- It's already been answered, but I just want to repeat it.
The general idea is that the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not strictly refer to good and evil. Adam and Eve already have a knowledge of what good and evil is. For example, they already know that it's a sin to disobey God's words.
Think about what eating the tree does give them. The moment Eve takes a bite, she realizes that she's naked and covers herself with leaves out of shame. Adam does the same thing once he eats. So, iirc (which I may not because it's been forever since I read Genesis and read any interpretation of it), the knowledge that the apple gives them is self-awareness and an understanding beyond that which God had already given them. Presumably, that understanding is limited only to God and certain disobedient angels.
Point taken. I think it opens up a lot the bible for scrutiny to make these sorts of arguments, however.
What he said was: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Unless this is also a mistranslation, God is very much lying. Did they die on the same day they ate from the apple?
EDIT: On the idea of 'having knowledge' and having 'intimate knowledge': what is exactly the difference between the two, and why would only having the first not lead to the second? Moreover: let's say there is a appreciable difference between the two. Apparently the second was required not to disobey God, or they would not have done so. So the question remains: why did God withhold this apparently crucial info from them?
Yes, but that applies equally to all parts of the bible.
Translation issues aside; there are other places the bible states that a day in God's time is not the same as one in our own.
I've always taken it as "the day you eat this, you doom yourself to death."
No, it does not. The Gospels and Paul's letters in particular are written accounts of people of that age. They're probably embellished, but we know the authors and they have independently verifiable events in them.
The old testament is no such thing. They are an origin story passed by oral tradition until such an age that they were written down.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
So? It is still disingenuous. If I said to you: I'll be gone until Sunday and I came back on a Wednesday saying "well, time is different for me", you'd rightfully be annoyed with me.
Like I said, I think it's more of a translation issue. Let's look at the 1599 Geneva Bible.
The [v] footnote is this:
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
In any case, Dech Kaison is right. The death there does not mean a literal death (though it also does, given that Adam and Eve were functionally immortal before they ate the apple), but rather separation from God, which Christians consider a form of, if not actual, death.
To a non-believer, the Bible should act as two separate things. First, the Old Testament acts as the creation story for the Jewish religion and a repository of the history of the Jewish faith. The New Testament acts as the "creation story" for Christianity, and a collection of what is believed to be historical documents that outline the fundamental premise and evolution of the Christian faith.
To a believer, it really depends on your denomination. Many U.S. Protestant denominations no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and most churches that would be defined as fundamentalist do. I would imagine the Catholics believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I am unsure of that.
To those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then the Bible is divine. To those who do not, the Bible acts more like it does for the non-believer- a collection of the history of Judaism and Christianity and its fundamental tenets.
Calling it a fairy tale in the way Set Abominae does is, frankly speaking, insulting.
I'm the one that started with the use of "fairy tale" in this thread, so I'd like to own up to that and perhaps explain myself.
I don't mean it to be insulting; I mean it to be descriptive. Look at the story told in Genesis, though. We know that it's a fictional story with mystical creatures fabricated to entertain children and convey moral truths. That's a fairy tale.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
In any case, calling Genesis a fairy tale is not nearly as insulting as calling the Bible in its entirety a fairy tale. The former, to me at least, feels like you're undermining it for whatever purpose, but within reason. The latter just feels it's spoken by someone who has absolutely no understanding and just buys into much bull**** dogma because it's "hip".
You can dislike Christianity all you want. You can dislike the Bible all you want. But do so with some understanding of what you are criticizing. At least read the Old and New Testaments and understand its purpose/interpretation from both secular and religious scholars/how the common people understand it before you voice your own opinions.
I don't know what you mean by "actual religion" here, but I already stated I'm a Christian and I certainly won't argue that the creation myth is real. You've also already mentioned the difference between fundamentalists and otherwise, so I'm really confused here.
I understand that ancient Jews passed along in oral tradition a fabricated story of creation, with or without divine influence, that serves to convey moral truths. They eventually wrote this story down in a book which has since been translated innumerable times, and contains questionable relation to the story as originally told. You say toe-may-toe, I say "fairy tale."
Anyway, I feel like we're getting off topic. I invite you to continue this discussion via PM if you have more to say.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Best I can do.
And I will clarify what I wrote in the above because you're right in what I wrote inside the bracket.
It's a good question, but a little like poking a hole in santa claus. How does Santa have time for your son's milk and cookies if by physical computation, he must exceed the speed of light and spend only miliseconds at every single house.
I don't take the book of Genesis literally though I be a Christian. Parents tell their children stories about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa claus. Likewise, I doubt any deity would say, "you are a single planet in a universe formed in a big bang, your life sustained by stellar fusion 4.6 billion years ago." to primitive human culture with no understanding of science.
Your question is easily dispatched. Eve and Adam may not have had a full comprehension of good and evil, but they perhaps knew enough that a direct command from God is significant. Knowledge of right and wrong, like all things we tend to comprehend, doesn't have to be a binary thing.
Just as children have a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong, that knowledge deepens into morality, justice, mercy, and more complex concepts.
It's possible that the fruit of the tree of knowledge may have just deepened their understanding to the point where they could be deemed "morally responsible" We don't hold young children to their crimes after all, even if they have some semblance of knowledge of right and wrong. We do hold them responsible however at some line. (basically 18 and not mentally handicapped)
However, if you want to play around with more reasons why Genesis doesn't make sense logically speaking, you should also consider
1) where did the land of Nod come from?
2) who are the Nephilum
3) where did Cain's wife come from?
4) where did water come from? not the oceans and the seas, but water.
Catholicism is the earliest form of Christianity. The first pope was Simon Peter.
As to your question, Eve had tools at her disposal. She was told by and almighty.... glowy.... thing to not eat it. This may be a personal interpretation, but whenever I think of life before Eve ate the fruit as similar to sociopathy, mixed with naivete. No sense of morals, just a form of blind trust. When the serpent lied to her, she had to weight her trust in God, versus what someone new had told her. She obviously made the wrong choice and damned us all to a life of sin. Take it all with a grain of salt of course, I'm not particularly devout of a Catholic.
"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."
-H. P. Lovecraft
I'm pretty sure Genesis was written before Pope Simon Peter was around.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Nephilim are the sons of god, and daughters of men. Genesis talks about this. Presumably the mating of angels and men.
------------------------------------------
[Team Revolution]
Well, it's more complicated than you're describing, actually:
A. The serpent is actually claiming that God is lying to Adam and Eve, so it's a matter of God's word being called into question by the serpent.
And the thing that should really blow your mind?
B. The serpent is the one telling the truth.
Yeah. It should really trouble everyone who reads it.
So the answer is the Genesis story doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. Indeed, I would argue it totally goes against Christianity. Jesus died to give us the truth and eternal life. You're trying to tell me that's reconcilable with a story about God doing everything he can to keep truth and eternal life from man? That's silly.
No, it's established God did lie.
Everyone buys into the argument that Adam and Eve weren't going to die. Except, this cannot be the case, because not only did God make literally all life in Eden and nothing else seems to be immortal (unless anyone knows of a plant that grows on the Earth or an animal that walks the Earth that lives forever, I think it's safe to say that Eden had both age and death), but why did God kick Adam and Eve out of Eden?
Right, because they might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.
Well, you can't become immortal if you were already immortal, now can you?
Also, why did all those horrible things happen to Adam and Eve? Because God inflicted them on them. He could have chose otherwise, he didn't.
Again, this story should trouble everyone who reads it. The serpent does tell Adam and Eve the truth. They didn't die upon eating the fruit, they merely gained knowledge that put them on the level of divinities. What does God say afterward?
Nothing the serpent says is false, guys. And that's what so disturbing about this story. The serpent tells the truth, and God doesn't. This should send red flags, and yet for some reason, Christians all over the place try to act like it's not a problem even though casual observation indicates otherwise.
The majority don't teach literal face value interpretation, although whether or not that ends up being the reality of it is another story.
The problem is there's this, "Well it's 100% true, just not 100% literally true" idea which is... mind-boggling really.
Also, people, the fact that our texts are translated is not a blank check to handwave away any passage that disagrees with you just because it's in translation. If you want to say that the translation is inaccurate, you must demonstrate that it is inaccurate. That means finding the Hebrew version of Genesis and demonstrating where the nuances of Hebrew differ from the Greek/Roman/English translation we are working with.
We have the Hebrew versions of the texts, guys. You can find them by Google.
Yeah, which didn't happen.
You're referencing a footnote that doesn't exist in the Hebrew text? So how is it a translation error?
That's an interpretation; not what the text says. If he meant "separation from god", why didn't he say so?
He did say so. That's the part that got lost in translation from Hebrew to Latin to English.
Clearly, "thou shalt die the death" cannot be taken at face value. No one says anything like that.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!