|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Question: What was the First Sin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Eve touching the apple from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Do I still have two lives left?
Hopefully, I do. How about. . .Eve touching the apple from the tree in the middle of the garden? (I know it's very similar, but I'm going off of your "so close" and "thought you had it there."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
This is a bit of a stretch, but I'm guessing that the actual answer is going to be. . . .
Eve was formed after God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Also, God said nothing of touching the apple (only eating it). When Eve was talking to the serpent, she said, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" One could interpret this as "giving false testimony," which IS a sin (although it's not necessarily against "a neighbor"). Chances are I'm wrong again, but it was worth a shot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
I don't know how much a tenner is worth, but I'm hoping it's more than the plane ticket I just bought to fly to Scotland to collect it.
And just because I got the answer right does not mean that I agree with it. While God does not say anything to Adam about touching the apple, you cannot tell me that there isn't a good chance that he reiterated (rephrased or elaborated upon might be better here) his original command. Anyways, nice job on the topic. It adds a little fun. Everyone, whether they believe the creation story was true or not, could answer the question without having to compromise their beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
No, the sin would be being ashamed of their nakedness, which came after the tree incident.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
quote: No. Satan does not go about on his belly. Too, Judaism had no concept of the devil at the time Genesis was conceived. Why would they include a reference to a being they didn't think existed and had no comprehension of? Revelation 12:9. . . ."The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the world astray. . . " I know it's the New Testament, but I thought it was worth adding. Also, I always learned that the book of Job was one of the oldest (if not the oldest) books in the Bible. Job refers to Satan numerous times (all of chapter 1 involves Satan), so I don't think you can safely say, "Judaism had no concept of the devil."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis. Or are you saying that anytime anybody uses the word "serpent," they're referring to the devil? The reason why the word "serpent" is used is staring at you right in the face. It has nothing to do with Genesis and everything to do with the fact that the author of Revelation is describing a DRAGON. I do not necessarily agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, but that is another matter. The original reason I posted the verse from Revelation was to show that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible, and it is understandable that Pringlesguy would think that. And, no, I do not think any time "serpent" is used it is referring to Satan. Also, whether Revelations is referring to a dragon or not is meaningless; it stills calls Satan a "serpent."
Not as old as Genesis. You base this on what? If you type "oldest book in the Bible" into a search engine, almost all the sites indicate Job. This is the closest thing I can find that supports your argument that Genesis is the oldest book in the Bible: quote: Not as some creature that crawls around on its belly. Instead, Satan is a servant of god who does his bidding. My point about Job had nothing to do with Satan being a serpent. I was simply pointing out that if Job is the oldest book in the Bible, then obviously the Jews had SOME concept of the devil.
Um, the "Satan" in Job is not the devil as Christians understand him. Again, proof? Anyway, without a description of how the early Jewish Satan differs from the modern-day Christian Satan, this makes no difference.
In Hebrew "Satan" means "Adversary." Cool. Any more useless information? I am willing to bet that most people who have read the Bible would consider Satan to be an adversary to God.
You seem to be functioning under the idea that all of the Old Testament was written down at once. No, certainly not. If I was, then why would I argue that Job was the oldest book in the Bible?
Genesis starts with a mention of many gods. Unless you are speaking of the Hebrew version, I see no indication of this. The fourth word in Genesis is "God" in all its singular glory. (Here comes the "Elohim" is a plural noun argument.) Finally,
So yes, at the time that Genesis was dreamed up, Judaism had no concept of the devil. Once again I do not see any indication of this. If you could provide some proof or at least something supporting this idea, I would greatly appreciate. Also, if I come across a bit harsh, I apologize, but I tend to get that way when someone makes wild assumptions and insults my intelligence (or at least that how I took it).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Irrelevant. You've got the direction backwards. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. I don't really think I have any directions backwards. To clarify a bit: in no way am I arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan (this doesn't mean I believe he isn't, just that it is certainly debatable). Furthermore, I am not even so much arguing that every serpent is Satan, or even that Satan is a serpent. I was simply presenting a passage where Satan IS referred to as a serpent, whether it be a dragon, snake, or whatever. You seemed to insult Pringlesguy for thinking that the Genesis serpent was Satan, and I was just trying to give a reason why he might have thought that.
and is not regarded in any way as supernatural, from where does the idea come that the serpent in the garden has anything to do with Satan? Once again, I'm not arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. To say, though, that the serpent "is not regarded in any way as supernatural" is slightly off. The serpent DOES speak, if you recall, and seems to be intelligent enough to deceive Eve.
Yes, but it is the height of naivete to then claim that because Revelation calls Satan a "serpent," that means that the "serpent" mentioned in Genesis is therefore Satan. Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. I never claimed this. And I agree completely that Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. Pretty basic stuff.
Analysis of the texts. As I pointed out in my next post, Genesis was written in the period before the 7th century, some parts as early as the 10th. Job, on the other hand, somewhere around the 5th, possibly as late as the 4th. Ergo, the book of Job is not as old as the book of Genesis. I understand that your analyses of the texts may have led you to believe that Job was written somewhere around the fifth century B.C. Obviously, though, whoever it is that originally determined that Job was written around 1500 B.C. did some analysis, too. So why should I believe you before I believe him? (Not that I put complete faith in this man's date of 1500, just that I am more inclined to accept it than I am to your proposed date.)
Too bad. You're the one claiming Satan is serpentine and that Genesis makes use of this, implying that the serpent is Satan. Again, I am not claiming this. And even if I did believe the serpent in Genesis is Satan, I would not think you are wrong for believing it isn't. I am claiming, however, that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible (Revelations)--nothing more than that.
Of course. What other version is there? I really wish I could read/speak Hebrew, but as it stands, I cannot. For this reason, I am referring to the several English translations I have right next to me. If you could elaborate on your point that Genesis starts out mentioning many gods and slowly evolves into monotheism, I would appreciate it. This post was a little more civil. If I ever get too harsh or out-of-line, please address me. I do not intend to infuriate anyone/make enemies over an internet message board. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Rrhain: your original comment to Pringlesguy was:
quote: With my original post, I was simply suggesting that maybe Satan DOES "go about on his belly." The verse from Revelations seems to support this idea. The "serpent" it speaks of may be a dragon, but this is beside the point--Satan is still referred to as a serpent, and if you want to get REAL technical, even dragons "go about on their bellies," for the most part.
quote: I never claimed this. In fact, I never even implied this. I do not know where you get this idea, but you seem to be stuck on it. Never once did I claim that ANY snake was Satan, and I only said that there is a POSSIBILITY that Satan may be able to take the shape of a snake.
quote: I brought up Revelation to argue that Satan is referred to as a serpent, and it was understandable for Pringlesguy to think so. You may believe that Judaism had no concept of the devil at that time, but obviously he didn't know that and/or doesn't subscribe to that idea.
quote: That may be so, and there are people who try to impose their beliefs on others, but that's another topic.
quote: That's great. Does it really matter, though? Maybe I should have said that you replied in "an insulting manner"? It is only a matter of semantics.
quote: This is silly. Most anyone would agree that an animal that speaks should be treated as supernatural. No, I have never seen an animal speak, so it is possible that it happens, but have you ever encountered a supernatural animal? So why, then, are you the judge of what characteristics of supernatural beings are?
quote: But if Job was written before Genesis, then that makes Job older than Genesis.
quote: No. I really could care less whether Job was written in the 5th century B.C. or the 15th, beyond this argument. I always thought, though, that Job was older and because of this, I saw your statement ("Judaism had no concept of the devil at the time Genesis was written") as incorrect.
quote: I agree with all three points.
quote: The three versions of the Bible I have next to me are: NIV, KJV, and the English Translation (Good News Bible?). I also have a copy of the Revised Standard Version somewhere, I think. You tell me, though--which English translation sticks most closely to the original context of both the Old Testament and the New Testament? I will be sure to purchase it if I do not already have it.
quote: This is another debate, but has it ever occurred to you that this may be speaking of the Trinity? I am not saying you are wrong for thinking it isn't, but you should at least take this idea into account. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Rrhain,
I know this topic is a little dead, but I don't want you or anyone to think that I am "fleeing" the discussion. Feel free to respond, but if you don't, that is perfectly fine. I'll ignore the smaller points and focus on just a few things.
If you don't have the direction backwards, then you are, indeed, saying that all serpents are Satan. So I'm wondering why you keep flipping back and forth. If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why on earth did you bring it up? If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why do you keep coming back to it? If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why are we still talking about it? Again, you have the direction backwards. That Satan is referred to as a serpent is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Do you see how that is a reversal of direction? We don't get to start with Satan, find ways that he's being described, and then go look for other mentions of that description and insist that it's a reference to Satan. Instead, you have to start with the actual reference and see if those references lead to a conclusion that is Satan being referred to. Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. The fact that Revelation calls Satan a serpent is irrelevant because Genesis doesn't refer to the serpent as a supernatural being but as an animal. I am not really claiming any direction. My position is that Satan is referred to as a serpent, so it is understandable for someone to think that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. You do not, however. Our disagreement arises because of our different views of the Bible, I believe. The Bible to me is the word of God through man. Therefore, I see the Bible as God's message to us, and so the period in history that each book was written is a little less important. The Bible to me is ONE work of art, whereas many view it as a "compilation" of books discussing God. My point is that I believe Revelations DOES have something to do with Genesis. I tried to ignore this belief for the sake of the argument, but I didn't do that too well, coming across as hypocritical. I apologize. Anyways, all serpents are not Satan, and Satan may not be a serpent. I believe there is enough evidence present, though, to at least provide a reasonable argument that the serpent in Genesis is Satan.
I don't think such a thing exists. On the most basic level, we're dealing with texts for which we do not have the original and even if we did, they are based upon oral traditions and thus we have no hope of finding the "original context." Instead, we have to look at the full tradition that surrounds the texts...and that doesn't really exist in a single book. Of course one exists. I asked which English translation sticks MOST CLOSELY to the texts. They all may be horrible, but one has to be better than the rest. "That's logic." Finally, regarding the Job-Genesis debate: It does not really matter to me which book is older. It has no effect on my beliefs, whatsoever. You know far more than I do about the history of both books. I still just wonder why I am supposed to take your word (Genesis 1st, Job 2nd) over whoever it was that determined that Job was written before Genesis, though. So saying, "As it isn't, it ain't," is misleading. The date of the book of Job is obviously debatable, so please do not present your date (which may be correct) as fact. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
phil Guest |
Essentially, it IS a compilation of books. I was just trying to stress the fact that I think it is more than that. If God really spoke through men (as I believe) to give us the Bible, then who's to say He didn't make sure everything He intended to be canonized actually was? In other words, if He went as far as to speak to us through prophets and disciples and such, why wouldn't wouldn't He make sure it all ended up being canonized. And so, you have the Bible to me--the complete word of God.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024