Biblical Translation--Eden

kbertsche: You ask a very good question: It is my understanding that if the Eden Text is being rendered as "historical prose" it is the "vau conversive" that changes the "imperfect tense" into the "perfect tense".If the Eden Narrative is being rendered as a "Wisdom Text {an allegory)" then the "imperfect tense" denotes that the "Command" is still being issued; the "Command" is being issued to the individual ">adam=human being/entity" who is currently reading the text. That ">adam" would be you or me or both of us at this point in time.Deuteronomy 1:39 is the only place in the entire Heb. O.T. that the clause "tob vara0=good and evil" is contextually defined: "toddlers and children who do not know 'tob vara0=right and wrong'." In the JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, Professor Sarna states:

quote:

---

"There the context leaves no doubt that not to know good and bad means to be innocent, not to have attained the age of responsibility."

---

Therefore, "ha>adam=the human archetype" has not yet reached the age of responsibility and is "an innocent" at the time God issues his two fold command (Gen. 2:16 & 17). The "tree" possesses this knowledge, the "ha>adam=the human archetype" does not. This contextual fact should toss up some red flags. A single ambiguous command is not sufficent to teach "an innocent" what the proper response to such a command should be.You and I, however, are in possession of this all important mental faculty. I think it makes sense to construe that God's commands are being issued to us; in the imperfect/incompleted tense.I look forward to your reply.
Ger

quote:

---

There is clearly not much room for "Satan" in that statement. Furthermore, at the conclusion of Isaiah 45:6 yhwh states:

---

I concur. Ultimately, the belief in a satan or any other force is a total misunderstanding of Monotheism; many regard it as unintentional blasphemy.Better, one regards the mysterious phenomenon of evil as the negative force countering the positive force, and that both are equally derived from one source. After all, a good force w/o the bad, is a non event: good has no merit w/o the countering bad force.We are also told that everything was created in a duality, which refers to life forms and inorganic products. 'MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM' = POSIVE AND NEGATIVE CREATED HE THEM. There is no 'ONE' in the universe - and nothing can happen without the minimalist of a duality.Amazingly, we find genesis vindicated: humans have control of good and bad, from the fruit which refers to this faculty; but we have no control of mortality and immortality - the fruit tree we did not eat of! This clearly makes the Eden story an allegory, but one which is very realisticly attached to reality. Only a profound allegory can shed light to all generations of mankind, one which does not depend on our knowledge status of the day. Even if such a text was made retrospectively, via profound reasoning, it is still an amazing and mysterious feat.Its a loss that when christianity emerged, it did not inculcate its teachings in the Hebrew language - subsequently, there is widespread lost in translation errors of understanding. or maybe there were some irreconsiliable differences of belief which it did not wish to deal with - which makes all conflicts of the mind and the material emerging from this pivotal juncture.

This is strange that you should complain about the Canaanite treatment right after you have lectured me that both good and evil are sourced in God, appealing to Isaiah 45:7. You are the one who just proclaimed Isaiah 45:7 that He makes both good and evil to come to pass.If you want to believe that then why are you now trying to criticize His treatment of the Canaanites? Wouldn't that be consistent with your view of God being the source of both good stuff and bad stuff?I detect that we are about to go hopping from subject to subject, changing the topic many times. And I think you may want to decide which debate you would like to have.Reaching down into your handy bag of various and contradictory objections on this and then on that is going to lead to a very scattered talk here.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill:If I were to believe in a "God" it would have to be one that indeed openenly states that "he creates light and darkness, peace and calamity." I have no problem with that.Someone, as in Joshua, other than "God", telling or directing his troops to committ genocide; I do have a problem with such psychotic behavior. It is just dishonest.I am trying to stay with the tree(s) in the Garden in Eden. However, sometimes side issues, like yours, have to be addressed. It was you that attached "love" to God, and you who attached "Satan" to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I hope we have put those concepts to rest, but if not, perhaps a little more discussion is needed.I look forward to your response;
Ger

IamJoseph: You state: The above, as well as the rest of your post I am in complete agreement with.As I told jaywill, now if we can get back to the subject of the "tree(s) and the two-fold "command" in the Eden Narrative with this information fresh in our minds we may be able to gain a closer look into what the author of that Heb. Text was conveying.What do you think?
Ger

quote:

---

Someone, as in Joshua, other than "God", telling or directing his troops to committ genocide; I do have a problem with such psychotic behavior. It is just dishonest.

---

There was no genocide or such intent from Joshua, except from the canaanites side. Joshua made a peace offer, as is mandated in the OT prior to any war. The israelites had every right to return to that land: they were 100% Canaanites, the nation of Israel born and incepted in that land. What really happened was, while the Hebrews were in Egypt for 210 years, owing to a regional famine, the original canaanites were massacred by invading groups, who took advantage of their weakened situation. That is why the text says:ALL THAT WAS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD DID THEY DO; ALL THAT THEY DID TO THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS YOU SHALL DO UNTO THEM.Of the 8 canaanite kingdoms Joshua confronted, two sided with him and faught with the Israelites against the other six - because they were aware which side was in the right. It is selective reading which makes such genocide charges. The OT very clearly forbids the Israelites from taking even a single cubit of land from its neighbours, issueing exacting borders with areial view depictions not seen elsewhere. This was seen when Moab [now Jordan] refused to allow Israel to pass even from its outerskirts, even for payment - thus the israelites had to take a circuitous route which took several years, rather than violate any nation's borders.The fact is, the israelites and the jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being the world's most dispersed peoples, and despite their lands being ravaged and stolen by numerous groups. That such false charges are made - is also a history of this issue. It was the Canaanites which declared genocide and rejected all peace offers - that they failed in their declared goal, should not be a reason to accuse the survivor.

What is this 2-fold command? I have posted without following the full course of the thread, and the first post in the thread does not deal with a 2-fold term.

IamJoseph:There are "acts of God" and there are "acts of men." We can either acknowledge the difference between the two, or any madman can claim that God told him to slaughter twelve-thousand (or more) men, women, and children (e.g. Joshua 8:25 & 26) and we can then accept that act as morally acceptable and justifiable.From your post it sounds as though you embrace the latter - the justifiable madman approach. I'm sure you are not alone there.Regards;
Ger

IamJoseph:The following is an "interpres" translation of Gen. 2:16 & 17. These two verses depict God's two-fold command. The following can also be found on post 32 on pg. 3; where it was copied from. Autumnman wrote: If this does not help bring you up to speed, perhaps I can find other posts that will, so we do not have to repeat ourselves to an exhausting extent.Regards;
GerEdited by autumnman, : post 32 on pg. 3

The Bible purports to be the communicating of God to man.I would be suspicious of it if there was nothing in it that I didn't like. I would be suspicious of it if everything in it went perfectly along with my disposition and opinion.I welcome "problems" in the Bible. I actually like it when it rubs my fur the wrong way and I stop and say "Why in the world is THIS in the Bible?"Actually, the Hebrew kings had a reputation of being merciful kings, you know?Secondly, their keeping of oaths to their own detriment and to the integrity of their sense of fair play caused them to deal honestly with some of the people they were to destroy.Lastly, from Genesis 15 we see that God would not bring the Hebrews into the land of Canaan because they had not gotten bad enough yet to deserve such judgment. God let them slide down hill for another 400 years.Even after the 400 years He added another 40 years as the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness to the fear of the Canaanites.So God added another 40 years for them to repent or disperse their evil societies. So I think I like to read the entire account and take a few other things into consideration.I will try to be a little lenient with your side points. Where did I attach love to God ? Not that I disagree with such an association. But I don't at all remember bringing it up.Since I don't recall bringing up the love of God at all, please quote me where I brought up the love of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill: You ask: jaywill; you made this statement on post 57, pg. 4. Can we get back to the Garden in Eden, now?Regards;
Ger

Fair enough. Thanks. Yes. But ...So what is your beef? God can't have divine love because He judged the Canaanites?We can dispense with this quickly by realizing that God's love does not constitute Him the Ultimate Permissivist.ie. Since God loves He would allow us to do anything.It may be hard for the generation raised on Doctor Spock to get that but a little common sense should inform one, especially if you have raised childen.God gave 400 plus another 40 years for the Canaanites to repent of their trangressions. When they got bad enough the loving God came in to judge them.Their temporal judgement in this life says little about their eternal destiny. But they were made an example to the rest of us. Their judgment did serve that purpose.When people overly complain about God's alleged lack of love because of the judgment of the Canaanites I refer them to the book of Jonah. Here is one entire book in the Old Testament soley dedicated to the revelation of God's reluctance to have to judge a sinful nation.Read the book of Jonah sometime to get another angle on this matter of a loving God having to perform His "strange work" of disciplining a society.What would you like me to respond to about the Eden discussion? I think I made my points about there being two trees of special interest in the Garden.You're welcomed to have another view. But that is my view - two trees of particular note:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The tree of life.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill:Unless your God is extremely impotent, he can do his own dirty work. Having a self-righteous madman supposedly do his dirty work for him is what I personally find distasteful. You think such activity is fine. So be it.But didn't Jesus say, "love your enemies ... for he [God] is kind to the unthankful and to the evil" (Luke 7:35).I have no doubt that you can explain everything. Please don't.If you are so rigid in your possition, knowing that you are absolutely right, and that your religious tradition is absolutely right, then I am not certain why you are even having a discussion with me.Your view is "You are right and I am wrong." Good for you.Regards;
Ger

Ah! Flamming already.I had a feeling that your true colors would show eventually. The scholarly sophisticated and objective tone was kind of intertaining for a little while. There's another juicy bit in Ecclesiastes which says "Money solves everything". Have you tried that one out for size?? What I needed to explain about the two trees I already did, thanks. If you really knew me you would see that I have no problem at all saying "I don't know." As a matter of fact I have told some posters that a certain question was too tough for me and asked them if they had a simplier one.We really are getting off on a sour note here aren't we? Hey. Didn't you read ? I said you are welcomed to have another view. But here is my view.That's how I closed off the last post to you. You had some interesting things to say.I'm kind of fiesty too though. This Forum tends to do that to you.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am looking forward to further examination of the Hebrew Masoretic text regarding the "tree(s)" and the "command(s)" described in the ancient Eden Narrative.We have only scratched the surface.I've got more to say, but an emergence has come up.Ger