|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Death before the 'Fall'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
jaywill, welcome to the world of jar. He will absolutely refuse to admit the obvious. You can show it to him a million times. The text obviously and clearly indicates a Fall, but not to jar. He gives no reasoning either, but just says no it doesn't regardless.
It's a huge waste of time trying to reason with him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Shall we at least attempt to keep this on topic and off your opponent's supposed shortcomings?
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
When you compare that to God seeing that the man made in His image was "very good" (Gen. 1:26,27, 31) do you still not notice any change in the nature of man? Do you still see no Fall away from God of man in the Bible? quote: i'm sorry, i don't see "very good" in these verses. it is in 31, but, consider the following: after every instance of creation in chapter one, god calls his creation "good." 4,10,12,18,21,25. there are three things which god neglects to call good: darkness, heaven, and mankind. why? also, consider that the first thing god describes as "not good" has to do with man:
quote: so evidently, god has NOT made a perfect creation, and needs to fix it. god tries making adam some animals, but that doesn't work. consider also god's experience with man. every single man he has created has sinned, except maybe enoch. adam, eve, cain... where's the CHANGE in man's nature? this is clearly a bit of mental gymnastics fall-ists have to go through, because here's the bit that REALLY doesn't make any sense. if it wasn't in man's nature to sin, why did he? remember, he had to sin BEFORE the fall. and if not knowing any better is an excuse, why is it sin? either god made man capable of disobedience, or he did not. but that is not something that can change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. this is what he said after he made man. every day prior to his making man, he said things were good. thus it can be assumed that man was the very part. but man being 'very good' does not mean immortal and perfect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. this is what he said after he made man. every day prior to his making man, he said things were good. thus it can be assumed that man was the very part. but man being 'very good' does not mean immortal and perfect. right, but everything is "very good" AFTER god makes woman. the man in genesis 2 has no woman. and evidently "very good" cannot mean immortal unless man's fall also affects animals too -- which are all "very good" according to god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
IMHO it's important to remember that the Very Good statement is part of a whole different tradition and story then the Garden of Eden one. We have two different stories, by two different peoples at two different period, each depicting a different view both of God and of creation.
The very good comment comes near the end of the story, and is the beginning of the summation. It refers back to the whole of creation and is the prelude to the day of rest. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
IMHO it's important to remember that the Very Good statement is part of a whole different tradition and story then the Garden of Eden one. We have two different stories, by two different peoples at two different period, each depicting a different view both of God and of creation. i know that, and you know that. but jaywill doesn't believe that. which makes it a good argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
i'm sorry, i don't see "very good" in these verses. it is in 31, If you will notice I referenced (Gen.1:26,27,31) Notice Verse 31 is included? The other verses were in relation to man being made in God's image.
but, consider the following: after every instance of creation in chapter one, god calls his creation "good." 4,10,12,18,21,25. there are three things which god neglects to call good: darkness, heaven, and mankind. why? I have noticed when and when not God pronounced His creation good. However, verse 31 certainly includes man. Man is the climax of the creation. And all the things were created for man. So in saying that God saw "everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good" it should be obvious that humanity is included. Beside pronouncing everything that He saw "very good" God specifically blessed man in verse 28. And to "bless" means to speak well of. So there is quite a gulf between what God speaks concerning man in Chapter 1 and what He declares about His sorrow for making man in chapter 6. Denial of a fall of some sort I do not take as a serious interpretation of Genesis even on a basic liturary level. The firmament above was not procounced good. Probably because the evil angels were hovering above. However, it was good that all was to be under man's deputy authority as the one appointed to head up all creation. That was "very good" in spite of the fact that Satanic hosts seemed very much present. I am aware of the theory that Satan is not in Genesis, but is the friendly neighberhood prosecutor who appears after the Babylonian Captivity - God's handy little opposing attorney, etc.
so evidently, god has NOT made a perfect creation, and needs to fix it. god tries making adam some animals, but that doesn't work. I don't know where you see this. There could be other explanations for the animals seemingly made after Adam is made. It could be that this was done that Adam might witness what he was not in existence to see beforehand. Then again, It could be just a general description of what God did without regard to time sequence. I haven't visited that issue in many years because I see no serious contradiction between the two summaries of creation.
consider also god's experience with man. every single man he has created has sinned, except maybe enoch. I think there is no need to exclude Enoch.
adam, eve, cain... where's the CHANGE in man's nature? The first signal is that whereas man fellowshipped with God without fear before he disobeyed, he cowardly hides himself afterward. His eyes were also opened and he knew that he was naked. When God asks Adam "Who told you that you were naked?" the strong implication that I get was that Adam was [now] taking in information from someone else. God didn't tell him he was naked or that it was wrong to be so. So WHO told him? The work of the slanderer had begun to accuse Adam in his conscience. The Devil temps man to sin against God. Then after sinning the Devil accuses man in his conscience that he has done so. Anyway, it is obvious that man's relationship with God has drastically been altered. The firstborn son, Cain, struggled with suggestions from sin crouching near the door. He could not master it. It was too powerful for him. And he became the first murderer. He also became the first one to invent a human religion. Man's being was poisoned. Something of a foriegn element was received into man's being, transmuting him, corrupting him, and changing his nature, constituting him a sinner. Genesis 6 has God pronouncing that man has become flesh. And this should be taken in this instance as a negative diagnosis. Man's spiritual nature has been made very dormant and comatose. He is ruled by his flesh. He has become flesh. All of this decline of man started with his eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
this is clearly a bit of mental gymnastics fall-ists have to go through, because here's the bit that REALLY doesn't make any sense. I think it requires considerably more gymnastics to argue that there was no alteration in man's nature or in his relationship with God after his disobedience. That many aspects of the fall are mysterious, I will grant anyone. And that we do not totally understand the nature of the alteration, I will concede that that is true. But we know what we need to know in order to be saved by God. That is what counts. And that God has packaged the creation and fall account in terms which even a fourth grader can grasp is not a reflection on the unsophistication the written material. On the contrary, I think it reveals the wisdom of God in making important and profound historical matters of a spiritual nature accessible to the greatest number of typical people. Some see a fairy tale. I see rather God's wisdom in communicating to us in accessible and near universal terms.
if it wasn't in man's nature to sin, why did he? remember, he had to sin BEFORE the fall. and if not knowing any better is an excuse, why is it sin? either god made man capable of disobedience, or he did not. but that is not something that can change. I see the command concerning the two trees as a line in the sand, so to speak. Whatever man did, as long as he stayed on the right side of the line, he was innocent. When he ate of the forbidden tree, he lost his position of innocence. Arguments about man's weakness or tendency to want to do otherwise, I feel are not important. God is the one who has the authority to pronounce man justified, innocent, guilty, or whatever other status concerning man's morality. In short, I see "pre-fall" sin of man as just a human philosophical plaything. When God said to do this will be your sin, and to do that will be okay for you, that is the business of the only one who has the authority to pronounce man's true moral condition. As long as Eve had not eaten the wrong tree, whatever else she thought, felt, imagined, was not pronounced as the sin. It was the act of eating which crossed the line and brought them under the authority of God's enemy. This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:02 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:06 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:09 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:11 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:14 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:23 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 10:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You have to remember that the tree is the 'Knowlege of Good and Evil'. Good and evil existed before, but man was unaware of it.
And you seem to concentrate so much on man knowing evil. Why don't you ever concentrate on the other side of the coin also? Before eating of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, man did not know GOOD either. Just think of the power of knowing GOOD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18299 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ramoss writes: Hypthetical speculations are interesting! The universe existed before life, but life (mind) was unaware of it. Which brings up the question of which came first: Awareness or Matter? Maybe a bit off topic, yet this philosophical question frames the belief systems of many philosophies and religions.
You have to remember that the tree is the 'Knowlege of Good and Evil'. Good and evil existed before, but man was unaware of it.ramoss writes: If we define God (or His Spirit) as "good", you are right. If Man had known "good" he never would have fell for the sales pitch of the serpent! Symbolically, of course! (God forbid we think literally! )
And you seem to concentrate so much on man knowing evil. Why don't you ever concentrate on the other side of the coin also? Before eating of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, man did not know GOOD either.ramoss writes: Just think of the responsibility of knowing GOOD! If we believe that GOOD is a personified reality and not an imagined concept, that is!
Just think of the power of knowing GOOD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You have to remember that the tree is the 'Knowlege of Good and Evil'. Good and evil existed before, but man was unaware of it. And you seem to concentrate so much on man knowing evil. Why don't you ever concentrate on the other side of the coin also? Before eating of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, man did not know GOOD either. Just think of the power of knowing GOOD. The problem is that though man now knows the good he does not have the power to carry out the good that he knows. He is very proud of the knowledge of it though. Many "good" people will be cast into the eternal punishment. And there is a saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." So I recognize that both good and evil were on the same tree. What man needs is the uncreated Person of God to be life to him. His justification and righeousness is in the hands of God according to God's standard of righteousness. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a ploy to make humans independent from God. But in trying to become independent from God man came under the authority of Satan the Devil. So man needs a salvation from the guilt of sin and the power of sin. He needs to become dependent upon God fully as Christ was dependent upon the Father.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Yes, it is a responsiblity.
It is apparently one that seperates man from (most) animals. In the Jewish view of the Gensesis story, it is the power to do GOOD that allows a person to be able to live a sanctified life instead of a mundane one. It is the ability to CHOOSE to do GOOD that allows man to become closer to God, rather than just like the beast in the field. And good is not a 'personified reality'. Good is an action. At least in the eyes of the Jewish religion. In the Jewish religion, Righthousness is actions. .. but is a state for someone in the Christian religion. Sin in the jewish religion is an action. It is a state that someone is in for the christians (as opposed to the state of grace). Because of the different starting assumptions about actions, the interpretation of the story of garden of Eden is going to be different. I will also point out that the vast majority of Jews do not believe that the story of adam and eve is literal, but rather figurative. Some will also say that Adam and eve were not really the first people, but rather the first people with SOULS. Implicit in that particular interpretation is that there was death before Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil. There had to be death for the warning 'you will surely die' to have any kind of meaning. This message has been edited by ramoss, 02-08-2006 06:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
And good is not a 'personified reality'. Ramoss, Do you feel that a Jewish concept of personified righteousness is seen in Jeremiah 23:6? "I will raise up to David a righteous Shoot; And He will reign as King and act prudently ... and this is the name by which He will be called, Jehovah our righteusness" (See Jer. 23:5,6) Doesn't this Jewish prophet, when speaking of a Person of the Shoot of David having the name of "Jehovah our righteousness" indicate a concept of personified righteousness? This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 11:56 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 11:57 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-08-2006 11:58 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 12:01 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 12:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
arachnophilia writes:
quote: Don't forget: They were sinning before they ever ate from the tree:
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. [...] Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Note: Adam and Eve have just broken the only commandment they have ever been given: Don't eat from the tree. And what is their first shock upon gaining the ability to know good from evil? They're naked. Not that they just contradicted god. They're naked. Therefore, if running around naked, which is a sin since the Bible indicates that they were not ashamed (which they should have been) and it was the very first thing they panicked over upon learning what sin was, was nothing to be concerned about, why was eating from the tree such a big deal? It would seem god created humanity in a state of iniquity from the very beginning. How on earth could they "fall" when they were already dripping in sin? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Could you please translate what you are asking?
It is unclear to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024