|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Death before the 'Fall'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Brian writes:
quote: More directly: God says that he needs to kick Adam and Eve out of Eden lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever. This means that they were going to die. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Brian responds to me:
quote: And where does one find this in the story? I see no passage anywhere in the story that indicates that Adam was actually immortal. Instead, there's continual talk of the possibility of Adam dying.
quote: Hold it right there. Where does god "take away their immortality"? Where is that in the story? I've read over the passages and I can't find any inkling of the immortality of Adam being stripped, let alone that he had it in the first place.
quote: And based upon absolutly nothing. There is no textual justification for this claim. Adam was always going to die. God told him that if he ate of the tree of knowledge, he would die a physical death that very day before the sun set. God panics when Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge and kicks them out before they have a chance to eat from the tree of life and live forever. God hasn't done anything to them and the tree of knowledge hasn't taken anything away from them. Therefore, the only conclusion is that they were going to die anyway. This does lead to an interesting question: Why is god so scared over Adam and Eve becoming immortal? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
randman responds to Brian:
quote:quote: Because lions, for example, are carnivores. Their diet didn't change due to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. I've looked through the story and I can't find any mention of such. If you are going to claim that all animals were herbivores, you're going to have to find the textual justification for it. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
randman writes:
quote: This is another one of those things that makes absolutely no sense. Don't you think that the very first thought Adam and Eve would have had upon eating from the tree of knowledge and becoming as gods would have been, "Oh, no! We just disobeyed god!" There was only one command they were given: Don't eat from that tree. And they did. Shouldn't that be the big thing weighing on their souls? What does nakedness have to do with anything? They've been naked all their lives and god never seemed to mind. The only thing that has changed is that they disobeyed god and understand what that disobeyance means.
quote: But that isn't what god told Adam. He told him that if he ate from the tree of knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set. Instead, Adam (at least) lived for nearly 1000 years more. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill writes:
quote: Oh? Why? Why is the Bible different from any other book? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:
quote: And yet, just like the serpent said, Adam didn't die. Instead, he lived for nearly a thousand years after. It would seem that god was lying to Adam while the serpent was telling the truth.
quote: But how do you take inconsistencies, contradictions, and incredulities? Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is simply poorly written?
quote: No, the problem is not that it is childish. It's that it is a ludicrous response given the context. Adam and Eve have been given one and only one commandment: Don't eat from the tree. But, since they are innocent and thus incapable of understanding good and evil (since they haven't eaten from the tree, yet), they don't understand the point and eat from the tree, anyway. Now, given the fact that they have never known a moment in their lives when they weren't naked, why would their first reaction be shame over their dishabille? One would think that the very first thing in the mind would be desperation over the fact that they just did the one and only thing that they were told not to do. Even if being naked were a sin, that would hardly be the most pressing issue at hand. I should think direct disobeyal of god would be the foremost thing on their minds. Even when they have time to think about what they've done, they're obsessed with being naked. Why do they hide from god? Not because they ate from the tree, disobeying the one commandment they have ever been given, but rather because they are naked. This makes no sense. What a sloppy narrative. We've just had a story with huge consequences ("Eat from the tree and before the sun sets on that very day, you will die") and what happens? Everybody seems to forget about that: Suddenly we're all focused on the fact that Adam and Eve aren't wearing any clothes. But wait a minute! They were supposed to die! What a letdown!
quote: There's another huge problem: Where on earth did Cain's wife come from? There's only four people on the entire planet, three of them male, and Cain manages to find a wife? And he manages to build a city? And people it with whom? Where did all of these people come from? What a sloppy narrative. I ask you again: Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is simply poorly written? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: Non sequitur. Please try again. The simple answer to the most intelligible part of your comment is that no, he did not surely die. Remember, you have to look at what god told Adam in comparison. God told Adam that if he were to eat of the tree of knowledge, then he would die a physical death before the sun set on the day he ate. That's what Gen 2:17 means: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It didn't happen. Ergo, god wasn't telling the truth.
quote: If he did, then how did he manage to live for nearly a thousand years afterward? "Surely die" means "physical death." Adam did not physically die, therefore he did not "surely die" and therefore, god wasn't telling the truth.
quote: For nine hundred years? If you told anybody that something would happen by the end of the day and it didn't actually happen for another nine hundred years, would you really claim that he was telling you the truth?
quote: Incorrect. It merely shows that not only was god not telling the truth, he was telling a whopper of a lie. God told Adam that he would die a physical death by the time the sun set on the day he ate. Instead, Adam didn't die his physical death until nearly a thousand years later. Ergo, god didn't tell the truth.
quote: No, it couldn't. That isn't what the text says.
quote: And I think it is terribly twisted and self-deceiving to argue the plain language of the text doesn't actually mean what it so clearly indicates.
quote: As you would expect from a book that was redacted from sources who were drawing on common source material. This is not a plus for you. Multiple people telling the same sloppy narrative simply means none of them could get it right.
quote: Excuse me? We're not talking about spelling mistakes. We're talking about major continuity errors as well as errors of fact. As an example, take Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona. Valentine is sent from Verona to Milan...by ship. Excuse me? You can't get to Milan by ship from Verona...it's inland. It isn't even on a river.
quote: Of course. When the text says black is white, it doesn't really mean that.
quote: Of course. when the text says black is white, then it means it in a way that we can't understand. Humans don't really understand what "black" and "white" are.
quote: Huh? I'm not talking about the duplications. I'm talking about things that on their face are impossible such as the flood. In order to flood the earth, it would require an order of magnitude more water than the earth has...and you can't use any of the water actually present on the earth because it's already at the lowest point and we need to get above that. The earth only has on the order of 108 cubic miles of water. We need an additional 109. Where did it come from? And even more importantly, where did it go? Forget all the other problems with the concept of a global flood such as the nonexistence of a global flood layer, no water damage on the Great Pyramid which was completed four hundred years before the flood going by biblical chronology, etc. All those things require examination of specific details. I'm talking about just the sheer concept. It is physically impossible to do.
quote: No. It's as if the two people were cribbing the same story. When two of your students turn in the exact same paper down to the spelling mistakes, we don't claim that a miracle occurred. We claim that they were cheating.
quote: BWAHAHAHAHA! By this reasoning, all scifi/fantasy books are works of god. Such miraculous things of incredible nature are mentioned along with other things that obviously called for both a high degree of intelligence and integrity to write. All hail Diane Duane. Surely Spiderman exists.
quote: Hmmm...a priestly caste writes details about priests. This is a shock? You are forgetting that the Bible wasn't written by peasants. It was written by theologians, edited by theologians, compiled by theologians, none of whom had any direct experience with the subjects of which they were writing, editing, and compiling.
quote: Then why is it such a lousy book? Back to the flood again: They can't even figure out how long it is. Forty days or 150 days? Did the animals go in by pairs or by sevens? Why do Noah and his family enter the ark TWICE? Well, a simple bit of literary analysis shows why: It's actually two stories being told simultaneously. Pull them apart and each one makes individual sense. But who was the fool who thought you should try to tell them both at the same time? They contradict each other.
quote: When you read the whole thing? You bet.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Didn't you read my post? The point is that they have been given only one commandment. They break it which allows them to understand what "breaking commandments" means. Do they immediately panic over having broken that one commandment? No. Instead, they panic over something that nobody has ever told them is wrong and they have been doing constantly from the moment they came into existence.
quote: No, they didn't. That's what innocent means: You don't understand what you're not supposed to do. It isn't that they were stupid. It's that they were innocent. In order to understand disobeyance, you have to understand right and wrong. But they don't know right from wrong because they haven't eaten from the tree yet.
quote: And how are they supposed to know that? They don't know right from wrong. They haven't eaten from the tree yet. They're still innocent.
quote: Why not? The very first thing they panic over is being naked. Nobody seemed to mind that they were naked before. Why should it be such a big deal now? If they were incapable of understanding why being naked was wrong, then they were also incapable of understanding why disobeying god was wrong. That's the point behind innocence: You don't understand the difference between right and wrong.
quote: Impossible. They were innocent. Understanding authority requires understanding the difference between good and evil, which they didn't have yet since they hadn't eaten from the tree.
quote: Only because, once again, you are starting with the conclusion and ignoring any evidence that doesn't lead to it.
quote: Yes, you do. The Bible tells you:
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. Are you about to say that the Bible isn't telling you the whole story?
quote: Yep, you are. This is very strange. For someone who practices such idolatry of the book, claiming that it holds so much wisdom and truth and perfection, you are very quick to point out that it has flaws when you can't find any justification for your claims.
quote: And the great wisdom we need to take from this event is that it's a sin to be naked? Wouldn't the better lesson be that it's a sin to disobey god?
quote: That's not what the Bible says. Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible?
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. No other source is ever mentioned. Why would god try to mislead you into thinking that it came from somewhere else? The name of the tree is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
quote: Satan? Who said anything about Satan? Satan isn't in the garden. It's a snake. You're not confusing the snake with Satan, are you?
quote: Their new-found knowledge from the tree has told them that they were naked. That's what the Bible says:
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. Who are you to contradict the Bible?
quote: But none of that is anywhere in the text. Where do you find anything even remotely like that in Genesis 3? The snake in the garden is not Satan. It's simply a snake. The Bible directly says so:
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? "Beast of the field." That means the snake is a plain, ordinary animal.
quote: But they had no idea that that was what they were doing. They were still innocent. They did not know right from wrong. If you have a priceless, delicate Mhing vase that you want to protect from being shattered, you don't put it on a rickety pedestal and leave your toddler alone in the room with it. No matter how much you tell the toddler, "Don't touch," the kid cannot be responsible for disobeying you: He doesn't understand. It isn't because he's stupid. He knows what you've said. He just doesn't understand the moral point behind it because he's innocent. When we hear the crash from the next room and find the vase in pieces around the child, we don't blame the child. We blame the parent for thinking that it was a good idea to leave such a delicate item around people who don't know any better.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? It isn't important that they were innocent? Doesn't that form the whole foundation of just punishment? You don't throw a temper tantrum against people who don't know any better. It was only a matter of time before Adam and Eve were going to eat from the tree. They were innocent and didn't know any better not to disobey god, especially when they were told the truth about the tree by the serpent. God says don't eat from the tree or you'll die. The serpent says you won't die, you'll just know the difference between good and evil. Now, how on earth are Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should believe god over the serpent? They don't understand good and evil. They haven't eaten from the tree, yet. Here. Time for you to make a choice: Beetaratagang or clerendipity. One of these is the commandment of god and the other is the foul evil of the devil. Choose carefully for your immortal soul is on the line. Which is it? Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Why do you hesitate? This is such a simple choice.
quote: We don't have to speculate at all. The Bible comes out and tells us directly: They were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge, yet, and thus didn't know the difference between good and evil.
quote: Irrelevant. Their action is not one of sin because sin requires knowledge of good and evil and willed choice to do evil. Since Adam and Eve did not have any knowledge of good and evil, none of their choices could possibly be deemed sin, no matter how wrong they are. That's why we don't punish people for having an accident. Back to the vase example above: Recently in a museum in Cambridge, England, a man tripped on some stairs and fell down. Unfortunately, some vases from the Qing dynasty were in sconces along the stairway and in falling down, he knocked them over and they shattered. No charges were filed, no accusations made, the museum's statement was that they were happy the man didn't hurt himself. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone: The man had an accident. He didn't break the vases on purpose. He committed no sin. It's sad and tragic and I'm sure the man feels awful about what he did, but he didn't commit any sin and it would be wrong for anybody to punish him for it. So why does god throw a temper tantrum when the inevitable happened?
quote: Excuse me? What does Ephesians have to do with anything? We're talking about Genesis 3 here. Stick to the topic at hand.
quote:quote: Because they were naked, not because they had disobeyed:
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible?
quote: See, here you go again proclaiming the book is flawed when just before you were claiming it was perfect and without flaw. When the plain text contradicts your preconceived opinion as to what it should have said, you claim that the narrative didn't include the justification you so desperately seek but that it is really there. Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible? The story simply doesn't say what you claim it says.
quote: Why? I thought the Bible was a well-written, complete, and perfect story. And yet, here you are saying that there are things that aren't included in it that are critical to understanding the plot and intent. But if it's missing the character development required to understand the motivations of the key players, then it's not a very good piece of literature. So we're back to my original question: Have you considered the possibility that the Bible isn't written very well?
quote: That's my entire point: They hadn't eaten from the tree yet when they ate from the tree so they cannot be held responsible for eating from it. They committed no sin. Sin requires knowledge of good and evil and the willed desire to do evil. Since Adam and Eve had no such knowledge, they could not possibly sin.
quote: Precisely. You seem to want to ascribe motivation to that act that they couldn't possibly have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. You can't sin without knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, they were completely incapable in all ways of ever sinning. Their disobeyal of god was not a sin precisely because they were innocent.
quote: Of course you don't. You're working from the conclusion backwards, ignoring all evidence that doesn't lead to your preconceived notion of the work.
quote: No, not "economical." Piss poor is more like it. The text does not put god in a very good light. He puts innocents into the lion's den, lies to them, and then when the inevitable happens, he throws a temper tantrum and curses the victims having the temerity to destroy the one character who told the truth.
quote: Any good book on Greek mythology should do it. You act like there are no other authors out there. These matter are all covered in the first ten or so chapters of the book of Genesis. Can you think of another book in which so many major and important themes about human life are covered in such an economical fashion? So I don’t think the concisesness nor the economy of what is written in Genesis reveals “sloppiness” at all. I perceive a divine Author behind the writing communicating with the world in near universal terms in which the most number of people can get the important points.
quote: Because there are only three.
quote: Because it directly states that there are three and only three. Adam was created, but Adam is alone.
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. So god creates Eve. Thus, there are now only two people in the entire world. Eve has two children, Cain and Abel.
4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. So now there are four people in the entire world. Cain kills Abel.
4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. So now there are three and only three people in the entire world. But wait, Cain is worried about what other people will do to him if they find him:
4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. Huh? Who are these "every one" of which Cain speaks? There's only two other people in the entire world: His parents. Remember, Adam and Eve are the first two humans. You even say it, yourself: "The names and history of the first human beings." Therefore, if there are any humans at all to be found, they necessarily must be the children of Adam and Eve. But the only children Eve has had thus far are Cain and Abel. So who are these other people? Where did they come from?
quote: Incorrect. The Bible doesn't skip over generations of people. Genesis 5 makes it very clear that Adam's other children come after Cain and Abel. Seth doesn't show up until Adam is 130 and only then does he have other sons and daughters. Remember, when Seth is born, Eve directly and distinctly declares that he is a replacement for Abel:
4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. Thus, there are no other children other children between Seth and his sole brothers, Cain and Abel. Why do you feel the need to contradict the Bible?
quote: No, the problem is not that it doesn't list every name. It's that it doesn't list any. It doesn't even mention the existence of these other people until the plot has painted itself into a corner and the only way to save it is to introduce a fact out of thin air, completely unjustified by anything that has happened before. It's like listening to a story told by a four-year-old. "And then he went out into the woods and then he wandered onto the lake and then the ice started cracking and then he fell in and then...um...oh, yeah! His dog pulled him out!" Dog? What dog? Perfect example of this in the new movie, Firewall. Near the end of the movie, Harrison Ford is looking for his family. For some reason, the kidnappers have taken the dog along with the family (there is no scene showing how the family is kidnapped or any discussion as to why to take the dog...it's just there.) How on earth is he going to find them? Oh, that's right! The dog's collar has a GPS signal in it! See, the dog was always running away so they got a special collar with a GPS unit in it so they could find him! In classic Greek dramaturgy, it's called "deus ex machina." The plot of the story has painted everybody into a corner and there is absolutely no coherent way to get them out of the predicament. So rather than realize that you've created a bad narrative, you physically bring in Zeus on a machine to wave his magic wand and make everything alright again. And that's precisely what we have in Genesis 4: The author, having forgotten that there's only three people in the entire world suddenly realizes that the only place for Cain to go is back to his parents. That won't work. He has to go out into the world. But he can't just be cast out alone in the world. God has already said that it isn't right for people to be alone. Damn. Have to give him a wife. Oh, yeah! There's other people! That's it. Well, no. No, there aren't.
quote: Perhaps it's because we're under the impression that sin doesn't change. If it's a sin to have sex with your sister (Leviticus 18), then it has always been a sin to have sex with your sister. Cain couldn't have married his sister because that would be a sin. Adam and Eve, who know good from evil, would never allow it. That's why the text doesn't say Cain married his sister. Instead, it invents an entirely new set of people out of the blue, hopes you'll forget that there aren't any other people around, and lets Cain slink off into the margins.
quote: Incorrect. It only mentions two people because there are only four in the entire world. The Bible does not skip generations.
quote: Sorry, but that's my argument to you. Those sons and daughters only happen AFTER Cain kills Abel and flees with his new wife. They only happen AFTER the birth of Seth who, as Eve directly declares, is a replacement for Abel. Thus, there are no other people in the entire world at the time Cain kills Abel than Adam and Eve.
quote: But that's a sin, always and forever. Adam and Eve would never allow it. They know good from evil and no other sin is ever ascribed to them.
quote: Except that there were no sisters for him to marry. He runs off with his wife BEFORE Adam and Eve have any other children. Seth is the replacement for Abel. Thus, there are no other children between Seth and his sole siblings, Cain and Abel. Where did Cain's wife come from? There are no other people in the world.
quote: See, you prove my point: You have a preconceived notion as to what it is suposed to say and then ignore all evidence to the contrary.
quote: Ah, but you should. It's what adults do. Sloppy narrative results in sloppy stories. Any attempt to derive meaning is lost as the details of the narrative defy any coherent analysis.
quote: Of course. But then again, those books aren't stories. They're scientific treatises. Thus, I treated them the same as I did A History of Mathematics. It's only a little over 600 pages long (ignoring the references and index and such), but it took me seven years to get through it. Why? Because I worked on every single problem that was described on my own before moving on. When the book describes the work that was done in an attempt to square the circle, it describes some of the accomplishments that were made along the way such as the method to square the lune. OK, time to stop and figure out how to do it on my own. It's not enough to simply look over the description, I have to know that I could do it for myself (being a mathematician). And once I knew how to do it, I would compare notes with my method to the one that was presented. The book that managed to kill me was Godel, Escher, Bach. But then again, I find that a lot of people are in the same predicament I am in: Lots of attempts to get through it, but everybody dies. I don't personally know anybody who has made it all the way through. I am certain that if Martin Gardner had written it instead of Douglas Hofstadter, it would have been a much better read. Some day. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat writes:
quote: But don't you think that before you can possibly get into a meaningful discussion of the interpretation of the text, you have to have a solid grounding of what the text actually says? Of the structure of the piece? Of the plot and the characters, the timing and sequence of events, etc.? I'm reminded of a coworker who had gone to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. She said she didn't like it because there was no reason for anybody to be worried about this sword. Huh? Well, after some further discussion, we find out that she had fallen asleep at the beginning of the movie and had missed the first 45 minutes or so. That makes a huge difference in how you're going to handle the rest of the story, don't you think? There's a rule in what is considered a "good" murder mystery: No character is irrelevant. If you have spent the time and energy to create a character and involve him in your plot, then he better have a good reason to be there. And, indeed, that's what we see in the literature that is best received: You don't understand how all of these people are involved, but by the time you get to the end of the tale it becomes obvious how each had a hand in getting you to where you are. Every detail is important and must be included in the analysis. Only then, once you understand how each part led you from beginning to end can you truly come up with a coherent analysis of what it all means. This doesn't mean that there is one and only interpretation that can be gleaned from a story. Instead, it means that any intepretation you come up with needs to take into account everything the story includes. There's a play by Baraka called The Dutchman. It takes place on a subway between a black man and a white woman. Question: Who is the main character? In my script analysis class, we all had our justifications for why it had to be her or him. The professor told us, however, that we had forgotten a third option: The other people on the train. They don't have any lines. They don't directly interact with two people. But they bear witness to what happens. The play does not take place in a vacuum that looks like a subway train. It takes place in front of other people. You have to remember that and include it in your analysis. You may conclude that they aren't the main character, but you cannot forget them. If you decide that it is the man or the woman, you have to take into account that their actions are happening in front of others and you must consider that effect upon why they say and do what they say and do and how they say and do it. So any interpretation of the Bible has to take into account the actual text first. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote:quote: I know. And that is precisely the problem. You refuse to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you might have made an error. How can you claim to have an honest understanding of your analysis if you refuse to consider that you might have made a mistake?
quote: No, they didn't. Adam lived for nearly a thousand years afterward. You're forgetting that god didn't just say they would "surely die." Instead, he said they would "surely die" before the sun set on the very day of which they ate. If I tell you that you will die before sunset today and you don't die, was I telling you the truth?
quote: Incorrect. Let's take a look at the actual verse, shall we?
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. What do you think "in the day that thou eatest thereof" means? It's not talking about some nebulous, vague, will eventually happen within the next thousand years time period. It means, given the Hebrew method of measuring days by sunset to sunset, that it would happen before the sun set. And "surely die" is referring to a physical death, not a spiritual one. Ergo, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" means "you will die a physical death before the sun sets on the day you eat."
quote: Incorrect. Instead, we spend most of the time during our formative years doing everything except dying. It's only when the body has passed through its full growth that it starts to deteriorate.
quote: Incorrect. God told him that he'd be dead by the time the sun set. Instead, he lived for another thousand years.
quote: Indeed. It's referring to a single, 24-hour, literal "day." Remember, Genesis 2 has no connection to Genesis 1. They were written by different people recounting different creation myths. The order in which things happen differs and contradicts. For example, the sequence in Gen 1 is plants, animals, male and female humans together. In Gen 2, it's male human, plants, animals, female human. You cannot use Gen 1 to inform Gen 2.
quote: But we were also told that humans were made at the same time, male and female together, after everything else had been created. Therefore, Gen 2 cannot possibly be referring to anything in Gen 1 because we find that a male human shows up before anything else was created. Remember, according to Gen 2 there were no plants at all:
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. That's part of the reason that god created Adam: To make the earth green.
quote: Incorrect. It cannot be interpreted any other way.
quote: Incorrect. The word, just like English, can be used to refer to individual days as well as to large spans of time, but you have to phrase it the right way in order to do that. Context will tell you. You cannot just choose which one meaning you want because it's convenient for you to do so. "On the day you eat" is a reference to a specific, individual moment in time, not an era.
quote: Incorrect. It cannot be interpreted any other way.
quote:quote: It's "non sequitur," with a u. And there is no logical error. God says Adam would die. The serpent says Adam would not die. God is said to be all knowing. Adam does not die. Ergo, since god knows everything, it cannot be that god was mistaken or misspoke himself. Therefore, god lied. Remember, god admits to lying. We shouldn't be surprised to catch him at it.
quote: Incorrect. I don't say that yowm can only mean a literal day. I say that in this particular context, it can only be interpreted as a literal day. Because the word has multiple meanings, you have to look at the rest of the utterance in order to provide information about what is going on. "On the day you eat" is not a reference to a multi-year time span. It's a reference to a specific moment in time.
quote:quote: Then what, pray tell, did you mean by "copyist errors."? The copyist's job is to make a duplicate of the text, letter by letter. If they make a mistake, it will be in spelling or punctuation or some such. Unless you're insinuating that entire tracts of text have been accidentally excised from the book? If so, then we can't take any of the work for an accurate statement.
quote:quote: I don't recall mentioning that. Please stick to the argument at hand.
quote: I have. What makes you think the Bible is a book of god? Wouldn't that be the ultimate coup for the forces of evil? To put out a tract that so clearly shows god to be evil and yet have people still come to insist that the "god" described therein is the embodiment of good? And with so many warnings right in the text! That would be the ultimate sucker play, wouldn't it?
quote: See, the Unitarians came up with a solution: The "trinity" is a bunch of hogwash. That's one of the reasons that Judaism doesn't treat Jesus in the same way as Christians do. According to Judaism, there is only one god. There cannot be a "son of" god. The Messiah is not divine. That's one of the huge points behind the story of Moses: Moses did not perform a single miracle. All the miracles were performed by god. Only god is divine.
quote: It isn't difficult at all. Free will and predestination are completely incompatible. If you know with absolute certainty, no chance for error, what I am going to do, do I really have any choice in the matter?
quote: Of course. The Bible directly says so.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Or does "all the high hills" mean something other than ALL? Or does "under the whole heaven" mean something other than WHOLE? But wait, there's an even more direct statement:
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. Does "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" mean something other than WHOLE?
quote: That's not what the Bible says. Everything died:
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. How does one interpret a statement that ALL flesh died and EVERY living substance was destroyed and that ONLY Noah and the other inhabitants of the ark remained alive to mean that there was some holdout?
quote: Ahem. Moses didn't write Genesis. The Pentateuch describes the funeral of Moses. How could he possibly have written about his own funeral?
quote: Hey, if you want to resort to magic, you go right ahead, but that isn't what the Bible says happened. The water did not magically appear through god zap-poofing it into existence. Instead, it came down as rain and welled up from underground. But there isn't enough water on earth to do that. If all the water suspended in the atmosphere were to condense out as rain right now, you'd get an inch of water which would immediately seek the lowest point in the oceans and start evaporating back into the atmosphere. No flood. Over 97% of all the earth's water is in the oceans. That puts it at the lowest point. And yet, there is still dry land. Therefore, to flood the entire earth as the Bible says means we can't use any of that water. We need to put new water on top of it.
quote: But that makes no sense. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. To accept Jesus is to deny Judaism.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you?
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. What is not to understand?
quote: Physically impossible. And even if we could figure out how it happened, that would make you an even more insistent advocate of evolution than evolutionary biologists. The genetic diversity of such a culling of the animals would require every single individual in the first generation to be a new species. No biologist claims that speciation happens that fast. That said, we still have a problem: As new species, they would be incapable of breeding with any other individual. All life would die due to inability to reproduce.
quote: What part of "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" are you having difficulty with?
quote: Irrelevant. We can live with colloquialisms. You can drive 100 miles out of town and still have people of the modern age exclaim, "We're in the middle of nowhere!" But that isn't what we have in the story of the flood. "The waters were on the face of the whole earth." What part of that are you having trouble with? Does "whole earth" mean something other than WHOLE earth?
quote: See...here's the problem: They thought they knew the whole world. They were very much mistaken. That's part of the reason that we know the Bible can't be universal. It makes claims about the entire world which are handily proven to be false. Therefore, if you refuse to accept the Aztec mythos and its proclamations about what happened to the whole world, why do you expect them to accept your mythos?
quote: Of course not. That's because he didn't know it existed. But that's just Caesar. He's a man. We don't expect a mere mortal to understand. The story of Noah, however, is inspired by god, is it not? Even if Moses were the one who wrote it, he wasn't there. He was getting the information from god. Surely god would know if everybody died or not. Surely god would know if the entire earth were flooded. Surely god wouldn't lie to Moses.
quote: But you will notice that it only happens in places that experience floods. In areas where there are no floods, there is no flood myth.
quote: You mean like the flood in the Bible. It's cribbed from Gilgamesh and the story of Ut-Napishtim.
quote: So you would expect that the students somehow managed to come up with the exact same paper, character for character, and there was no funny business taking place?
quote: It's called "common themes." You don't really think the story of Jesus was original, do you? It mirrors the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, and Mithra. Why do you deny them?
quote: No, it seems as if you had people cribbing from the same source. As they say, there are only a dozen or so original plots.
quote: You are assuming that the "originals" have anything to do with the text of the Bible. Don't you think that the redactors and editors and compilers might have had a hand in how it got put together? After all, the Bible contains two distinct and mutually inconsistent versions of the flood. And yet, it tries to tell them both at the same time.
quote: If you don't like being ridiculed, perhaps you should endeavor to be less ridiculous. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat writes:
quote: You misread. The "or" is not coordinating "truths" and "generalizations." Instead, it is coordinating "symbolism of truths" and "generalizations about human experience." Even if we are going to interpret the "or" to be coordinating "truths" and "generalizations," you cannot ignore the words around it: The "truths" or "generalizations" are about "human experience" and even so, those "truths" or "generalizations" are symbolized. A symbol is something that stands in place of another by association, similarity, or custom. That is, the color red is a symbol for anger not because anger actually is red but because we have agreed to the convention. The flag of a country is not the country, but it symbolizes it. The country is real, but it would be a mistake to think that what happened to the flag was actually happening to the country. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
quote: That would impute an entirely different motivation on god that is not justified in the text. After all, not too long after he does go around and kill everything on the planet except for a few creatures in a boat. Given the bloody-mindedness of the god described in the Old Testament, there is no real justification to say that "god didn't really mean it" in Genesis 3. By all indications, he really did. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Garrett writes:
quote: Then why was Abel a shepherd? And why did Abel slaughter a sheep in sacrifice to god? And what did you think was done with the sacrificed meat? It wasn't just for the wool and feta cheese. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano writes:
quote: Then what was the point of the tree of life? After all, god panics as soon as he hears that Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree of knowledge and kicks them out lest they eat from the tree of life and become immortal. Thus, they must have been mortal before. Thus, they were going to die, anyway. And since carnivores don't survive on vegetarian diets, this must mean that there was death before the fall or a great many animals would have starved to death. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Garrett writes:
quote: Biologically, this makes a bit of sense. Prokaryotes have existed longer than eukaryotes. In fact, bacteria outweigh the eukaryotes by two to one. Now, when a bacterium splits, did the original one "die"?
quote: Yes, it does. Why does god tell Adam that he would die if there was no such thing as death? Why is there a tree of life that grants immortality if there was no such thing as death?
quote: And then what? A biome can only support so many organisms before it collapses and the population dies. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024