How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

it doesnt work the same way.

---

Huh? You just destroyed your own argument. You're the one saying that the Bible is literal and that the creation days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. Well, those use the word "yom" for "day." You then turn around and say that the day of Genesis 2 is 1000 years. Well, that also uses "yom" for "day."Something is clearly guiding you to interpret "yom" literally in one instance but metaphorically in another.You don't get to have it both ways, Peg. Either Hebrew understands the concept of metaphor and has multiple meanings for "yom" that are gleaned from contextual clues or it always means exactly the same thing without variation.

quote:

---

They are completely different languages with completely different gramatical structures.

---

Of course. But metaphor is metaphor. There isn't any language anywhere that doesn't use metaphor. No language is completely literal. Every single languages uses terms that have multiple meanings that extend concepts beyond their literal meanings to provide ways of describing things without having to have a different word for every single concept that might come along.

quote:

---

Its just that you are reading the verse from an english translation so to you it seems that the gramatics are the same because thats how the english interpreters have rendered the verse...thats what translators do.

---

I don't recall saying I was reading from an English translation, do you? Don't presume to think you know me or my background, Peg.The phrasing in Genesis 2 is very clear: "Yom" is being used to mean a literal, 24-hour day. More specifically, given the Jewish method of measuring days from sunset to sunset, the phrasing is indicative of a physical, literal death before the sun sets, heavily implied to mean immediately.

quote:

---

Here are some examples of how the hebrew grammar is FAR different to our english:

---

What on earth does that have to do with anything? The fact that Hebrew is using a VSO ordering rather than an SVO ordering as English uses has no bearing on the meaning of statements made in the language. Variations in English alter the word-order of the syntax (Gaelic speakers tend to do so given that Gaelic langauges tend to be VSO), but that hardly alters meaning. Go see The Beauty Queen of Leenane to see what I'm talking about. It's in English, but the characters are Irish and syntax is reversed all over the place. Yoda had this trait: "Grave danger you are in" is OSV, but the meaning is perfectly clear. Latin languages commonly reverse the order of modifiers compared to English, "Moulin Rouge" rather than "Red Windmill," but that doesn't change meaning.Surely you understand how ridiculous your argument is, yes?

quote:

---

The verses we are discussing are from the hebrew text...not the NT.

---

No, the verse you are using to justify your claim that Genesis 2 means 1000 years and not one day is from the New Testament, 2 Peter 3:8. That's a Greek text, not Hebrew and as was shown to you, it has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis or even anything to do with actual measurements of time but is a metaphorical (remember that concept?) description of patience. It is part of a statement that god does not work by man's schedule and all our insistence that the end of the world (for it is a statement about the end of the world) is going to happen soon (the way Jesus said it was) does not obligate god to bow to man's desire.So for somebody who is insistent that grammar is such an important thing, why are you trying to use a different language, which has a different grammar (Greek is usually VSO, but is often SVO for certain constructions where the subject is directly stated), to justify what something means in Hebrew?You don't get to have it both ways, Peg.

quote:

---

So whats with the book of Job?

---

What about it? Surely you don't think that the "Satan" mentioned in Job is the devil, do you? "Satan" means "Adversary" and is not an indicator of someone evil but rather someone who works for god. Satan observes humanity and seeks out sin. God makes a comment about righteousness in Job and Satan points out that his faith is bolstered by his blessings. God responds that Job would still maintain his righteousness even without them and then god sends him off to test Job.Job is not a story about a man being hounded by the devil. It is a story about faith being in god no matter what happens. All that happens to Job happens because of god's command. Satan does nothing to Job without god's direct orders to do so: Job is not being cursed by the devil but rather is being tested by god.

quote:

---

Quite a lengthy discussion in there about the Devil... do you deny that Job is a book of the Hebrew Scriptures?

---

Not at all.What I deny is that there is any mention of the devil in Job.Do not insert your Christian theology onto a Jewish text. Judaism is a monotheistic religion, heavy emphasis on the "mono." There is only one god, one power, one source of absolutely everything. That's why there is no devil and Jesus was clearly not the Messiah for he claimed to be the son of god, which is blasphemy. A son of god would mean that there are two and there is only one. A devil would mean that there is a power opposite god which would mean that there are two and there is only one.All things come from god: And most importantly: There can be only one.Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?I say that eating from the tree is one while Huntard says it is the other. Which of us do you believe?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

dont take me out of context. My comment above was to your claim that english and hebrew grammar work the same way.I said 'it doesnt work the same way'And NO, i dont believe the Yom is 24 literal hours in genesis. While the hebrew word means 'resister', the Satan in this verse uses the definite article has.Sa.tanSo its 'the resister'The resister is also mentioned at Zechariah 3:1-3 "And he proceeded to show me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand in order to resist him. 2Then [the angel of] Jehovah said to Satan: Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan," Whoever this angle is mentioned in job, he is an angel who became a resister and enemy of God.In the NT he is identified as the 'devil' AND 'satan' and they are the same thing. Devil means 'opposer' and Satan means 'resister. And im sorry to contradict you here, but those who first spoke about the devil WERE jews.Christianity was started by Jews.

quote:

---

dont take me out of context. My comment above was to your claim that english and hebrew grammar work the same way.

​

I said 'it doesnt work the same way'

---

Maybe you need to take a creative writing class to understand figurative language. Did you really not understand what Rrhain was saying concerning English and Hebrew grammar? In any language there are indicators that tell the reader to use a different meaning of a word. There are indicators that tell the reader whether the standard meaning of the word is used or a more figurative meaning is used, etc. I don't see how you can understand anything in the Bible if you have difficulty discerning literal or figurative usages. Doctrine doesn't determine how a word should be understood.

quote:

---

In the NT he is identified as the 'devil' AND 'satan' and they are the same thing. Devil means 'opposer' and Satan means 'resister. And im sorry to contradict you here, but those who first spoke about the devil WERE jews.

---

No they don't mean the same thing. Satan means adversary. As the word is used in the book of Job, it is personified and the character has the position in the divine court of prosecutor. The vision in Zechariah has the Satan character in the same job. A prosecutor does oppose the other side.Devil (diabolos) means prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely.An adversary isn't automatically a slanderer.In the OT the word translated as devil (shed) means demon, not adversary.Since neither the word satan or devil are used in Genesis 3:1, this issue is off topic and useless to the discussion.Serpent is the word used. Stick to what is written. The serpent is associated with wisdom in that verse.The Hebrew word arum isn't necessarily a negative term.I think using the word "subtle" is a poor choice today. That doesn't really tell me anything good or bad. The meanings crafty, shrewd, prudent, and sensible aren't necessarily negative. They all refer to wisdom.That makes Eve's choice even harder since the snake was portrayed as wise. There wasn't a reason for Eve to mistrust the snake. Remember, the snake did tell the truth.ABE: One issue you fail to address in Hebrew or English are the indicators. You can babble on about how Hebrew is different, etc. etc., etc.; but the bottom line is show us the indicators. You haven't addressed that issue.What indicators within the verses, whether Hebrew or English, indicate that yom or nachash are to be understood figuratively and not the standard meaning of the words?We have the same expression in Exodus 10:28, which was written by the JE writter as is Genesis 2:17. Now if we read the rest of Exodus we see that Moses did see Pharaoh's face again. Pharaoh's threat implied that if he saw Moses again he would kill him, not that Moses would just drop dead or eventually die of old age. I've made this comment before concerning muth. The implication from Pharaoh's threat and God's threat is that the person would be killed. Pharaoh chose not to kill Moses, just as God chose not to kill Adam and Eve.The implication in both cases is that death would be relatively quick and not natural. IMO, in both cases it was a scare tactic since neither of them carried out their threat.Oddly enough we still make the same type of threats today. Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

But that's still not what the text says. No matter how much you think this is the case, the text clearly says the trees themselves grant these powers. For the same reason he put the tree of knowledge (a tree he certainly didn't want them to eat from) there. He is either a) Incompetent or b) setting them up. He still did it with the tree of knowledge. I usually distinguish between immortal and eternal. Immortals live forever, but can die (if that makes sense). Eternals will exist forever.Anyway, that's not the point here. Adam and Eve were not created to live forever (and thus, meant to die), as is clear from the text.

I have just one question for you with regard to living forever.If it were never Gods purpose for Adam and Eve (and their children) to live forever, why is that prospect a central theme in the bible?

Because most people (as you have alluded to), will find living forever a great prospect to look forward to. Promise them a reward they will definately want, and they will follow. Of course, make sure the award can never be obtained within their own lifetime. Tell them it will be i the future, long after they and you have died. If you jut live how we tell you to, then when the time finally arives, you get to live forever!

Ok, so you dont deny that the bible contains such a prospect.This is why we must look at all areas of scripture to understand what is being said in others.
You probably notice that nowhere in genesis is 'free-will' mentioned. Yet from other scriptures stating that God has given mankind a 'choice' is how we understand what free-will is and that Adam and Eve had it.The fact that the prospect of eternal life is held out to mankind in the many other scriptures leads us to conclude that Adam and Eve also had such a prospect....the tree of which symbolized that prospect.

Nope, that's in there. I don't agree with that. You can't impose stuff witten centuries after genesis upon genesis. Which is why I don't claim they had free will. In fact I contend no one has free will, but that's a different topic. Not neccesarily, he could've given mankind that "choice" long after Adam and Eve. But let's go with the assumption they did have free choice. A prospect, yes. which makes god's threat even weirder. "You will positively die that day" makes no sense if the one you are saying it to is already living forever, or meant to live forever. They could've been living forever, had they eaten from the tree of life first, then god would've had a aproblem, because there's apparently nothing he can do about that to change it. Which makes it even weirder to put both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life within Adam and Eve's grasp. Think of the devastating consequences for god if they had first eaten from the tree of life, and then, before god could intervee eaten from the tree of knowledge, they would've been like god then. That's why I maintian that either god was a) incompetent or b) setting them up with the tree of knowledge,.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

dont take me out of context. My comment above was to your claim that english and hebrew grammar work the same way.

---

It would be very nice if you would not play me for an idiot, Peg. You see, the nasty thing about the internet is that everything you post is saved forever. Message 200Now, it is clear to all but the most obstinate observer that I am not talking about grammar. Instead, I am talking about rhetoric. There is this thing in rhetoric called "idiom" where the way in which things are phrased determines meaning.Do you know what "grammar" means, Peg? "Grammar" is the physical structure of a language such as word order. Why is it English says, "Red Windmill," while French says, "Moulin Rouge"? That's grammar. Why is it English says, "The big, red balloon," and not, "The red, big balloon"? That's grammar. Now, grammar does affect meaning: In English, "It is" is a statement while "Is it" is a question. But the use of the word "day" to indicate both a literal, 24-hour day as well as an indefinite period of time based upon the phrasing in which the word is used is not an example of grammar. It's an example of metaphor, of idiom, of rhetoric. When we, in English, say that someone "kicked the bucket," we don't mean that a foot applied an abrupt force to a pail. We mean that somebody died. That's metaphor. Whether we phrase it as "kicked the bucket" or "the bucket was kicked" is immaterial as the meaning is not to be found in the word order but rather in the phrasing.And just as English uses the word that usually refers to a single rotation of the earth upon its axis to also mean long stretches of time when phrased in certain ways, Hebrew also uses the word that usually refers to a single rotation of the earth upon its axis to also mean long stretches of time when phrased in a certain way. That isn't grammar. That's idiom and metaphor.You are depending upon this very thing in your claim that life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old while at the same time saying that god didn't lie when he said that on the "day" that Adam ate from the tree, he would die even though he lived for more than 800 years after that moment. The exact same word, "yom," is used in both places. But the only way it can possibly mean "literal, 24-hour day" in one instance while meaning "extended, indeterminate period of time" in another is if there are idioms and metaphors within the language that allow a single word to have multiple meanings.My point is that yes, "yom" can mean periods of time beyond 24 hours just like "day" can mean periods of time beyond 24 hours. But, the only way it can do so is when it is phrased in a certain way.Genesis 2 does not use that phrasing. Instead, it uses phrasing that indicates not only that Adam would die before the sun set, but even more dramatically, he would expire on the spot.Now, the question is why you would accuse me of "taking you out of context" when you were not exactly truthful in your description of my statement. Remember, Peg, all of our words remain and can be recalled at any time. It would behoove you to avoid bearing false witness for it is trivial to show your errors.

quote:

---

I said 'it doesnt work the same way'

---

Yes, but only because you decided to talk about a completely different subject. That is, you physically did say that Hebrew and English don't work the same way, but only because the "same way" you were referring to was grammatical structure, not the actual way I was referring to which is the way in which the word for a 24-hour period can also be used to refer to longer periods of time if it is phrased in a certain way.

quote:

---

While the hebrew word means 'resister', the Satan in this verse uses the definite article has.Sa.tan

​

So its 'the resister'

---

The most common translation is "adversary." But the point you are missing is that this character is not an adversary to god. How can he be when he is a subject of god and carries out his orders? No, the character of Satan is an adversary to humanity. He goes about the earth observing humans to see what they are up to and root out sin.

quote:

---

Whoever this angle is mentioned in job, he is an angel who became a resister and enemy of God.

---

Says who? Christians? Why should anybody believe a single word a Christian has to say about Judaism? It is arrogance at best to force your mythology onto somebody else's.

quote:

---

In the NT he is identified as the 'devil' AND 'satan' and they are the same thing.

---

But we're not talking about the New Testament. We're talking about the Torah. Are you about to claim that Jews don't understand their own religion? There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. Ergo, the character of "Satan" as described in the book of Job cannot be the devil for there is no such thing.

quote:

---

And im sorry to contradict you here, but those who first spoke about the devil WERE jews.

​

Christianity was started by Jews.

---

The moment they turned away from god to follow this "Christ" fellow, they ceased being Jews.What part of "thou shalt have no other gods before me" are you having trouble with?Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

If it were never Gods purpose for Adam and Eve (and their children) to live forever, why is that prospect a central theme in the bible?

---

It isn't. You're confusing a Christian mythology for a Jewish one. There is no afterlife in Judaism; at the very least not anything like what the Christians claim.Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Yes, you can. Jesus did because he understood that the bible was written by one author for all mankind. There is a theme that runs thru the entire bible and everything is interlinked and inertwined....that what makes studying it so interesting.

Peg responds to Huntard:

quote:

---

Yes, you can. Jesus did because he understood that the bible was written by one author for all mankind. There is a theme that runs thru the entire bible and everything is interlinked and inertwined....that what makes studying it so interesting.

---

Strange how the people who wrote the Torah don't seem to think all that stuff that was written centuries after has any connection.Or are you trying to tell Jews that they don't understand their own religion again?Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

quote:

---

Yes, you can.

---

True, we are capable of imposing later thoughts, practices, and beliefs on earlier authors; but it is a dishonest and misleading practice.

quote:

---

Jesus did because he understood that the bible was written by one author for all mankind.

---

Depending on what scripture you are talking about, I don't feel Jesus did what you're doing. That also is probably another topic. You do have a way of dragging everything but the kitchen sink into a debate.Living forever is not the central theme of the Bible. Religions and beliefs evolve. You can't project backwards. To deduce whether A&E were meant to live forever, we have to stick to what is in the story. Since they would have only been able to live forever if they had eaten from the tree of life, that tells us their bodies were not designed to live forever on their own. Since God threatened to kill them if they ate from the tree of Knowledge, that tells us they were capable of dying. So they were not created to live forever and they were capable of being killed.Have you ever really read any ancient folklore or myths? Jim Henson did a good job with the "Storyteller" if you don't want to read. They aren't all sunshine and lollipops.The storytellers of the A&E story lived in harsh times. Although this story may have been considered a watered down version for their time. Just deal with the story on its own merits, Peg. Stop adding to it and imposing current beliefs and later concepts to it. If you're afraid to understand the stories as they are written, I'm not sure why you persist in these types of debates.Personally, I enjoy learning and I've learned quite a bit since joining EvC.Read the story Peg, don't rewrite it.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

the fact is that judaism today has changed greatly from what it was when genesis was written

But Christianity hasn't changed since Paul?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD