The first 3 chapters of Genesis

So God says, "Well, Eve, you would have delivered your baby in pain, and you will still deliver your baby in pain."Is that it?

So you think God says, "Well, Eve, you would have delivered your baby without pain, but now...."Is that it?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, of course. And there used be no thorns and thistles and now there are. It used be easy, but now it is hard. That's the obvious meaning here.

But that's just silly.What kind of a "punishment" was it if Eve had nothing to compare it to? It's like telling a three-year-old, "I was going to let you drive the car, but now you'll have to wait for years and years and years."Where's the punishment?I'm beginning to wonder if you only brought this up so you could make God look like an idiot.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Does anyone have information on how Jewish theologians read the text? Thanks.

---

Reading Genesis: Text with Introduction and Rabbinical Commentaries
http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenIntro.htmlWiki: Judaism and Evolution
Jewish views on evolution - WikipediaJewish Interpretation: Reason + Mitzvot = Faith
Jewish Interpretation of the Bible

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

This is about the facts of the story. That's all it's about. The interpretations of the facts of the story by Jar and others are false. They are political in nature. This will not do.

thanks!

But you're the one who's making up stuff about what the world woulda/shoulda/coulda been like if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree.Where are your "facts" about what woulda been? Where are the facts about Eve's previous experiences in childbirth? Where are the comparative facts on Adam's workload before and after?It's all preconceived notions, not facts.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It is the inconsistencies like this that make it obvious that it is not a literal story but rather a folk tale.There IS though a valid reason IMHO for both of the Genesis Creation tales to be included as well as the detailed Garden of Eden myth.Since the title of this thread is "The first 3 chapters of Genesis" it might be worthwhile actually looking at them instead of just dancing around Robins fantasies.Creation in Genesis refers to the "relationship" between GOD and what was created. Genesis 1 describes the transcendance and otherness of GOD. In Genesis 1 we see a GOD that is sure, that moves with no hesitation, that creates simply by the act of creation, that looks on what is created and finds it "good'. It also serves to establish the seven day week, and the day devoted to rest and also worship.Genesis 2 is entirely different. Genesis 2 describes an intimate GOD, one directly living and dealing with individual creation. The God of Genesis 2 is a personal God, not aloof like the God of Genesis 1, personal and yet human, hesitant, sometimes unsure. The God of Genesis 2 is far more like other Gods of the period, very human, unsure, sometimes fearful, making mistakes.Genesis 2 establishes the single biggest thing they saw as different about humans, it explains why we know right from wrong, why we are charged to try to do what is right and try not to do what is wrong.It goes on to explain the main things about life. It explains why snakes have no legs, why we fear and kill snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for humans than other animals, why people must farm instead of foraging like the other animals.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

At the risk of Crevolution having a hernia...I always wish I kept some kind of diary of my own route to salvation. But of course I didn't perceive it being brought about at the time (God not making himself known so as to force us ... and all that jazz) it so logically it couldn't happen.For your (potential) dotage:Your interaction of any substance (aside from a a quip or two here and there) in the Bible Study forum is limited to 4 occasions involving 4 people: Faith, Jaywill, Crevo and myself. A trinity of those happen to be Faith Aloners. The other...well he's has been shown to be just another lilly livered mark like you. The marks debating amongst themselves...sheesh!And now your off in Bible Study yourself for the first time.Good searching Robin.

Yes, it does seem to be another it's-obvious-because-robin-says-so thread.I like the way you delineate between the transcendent God and the personal God.
There are a lot of "implications" in the stories that don't depend on treating them like a comic book.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What a bunch of garbage this is. It's about man disobeying God and God punishing him for it. How more obvious can it get?

What in the hell are you talking about?

Your history in Bible Study...oh, and your having been determined an evangelists patsy according to some hereEdited by iano, : No reason given.

There had to be some reason that the redactors of the Bible included two mutually exclusive stories, and also reversed the chronological order, kept them separate instead of merging the tales as they did with other parts of Genesis or Exodus.In the case of Genesis the redactors place the newer tale first. It is a more sophisticated model than the older tale seen in Genesis 2. Why? Why not merge them together as they did in the other places?IMHO the different pictures of God are what is important. Each one shows a facet of God, an important thing we need to understand, that GOD is both Transcendant and Personal, Distant and Near.They presented the Transcendant GOD first, and then transition to the Personal GOD that walks with us, talks with us.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion