|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The first 3 chapters of Genesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Robinrohan,
I agree with your interpretation, and I confess puzzlement at the declaration by some that there was no fall. Perhaps some just don't like the phrase "fall from grace" as a reference to God's expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, and in that sense they mean there was no fall, but that seems a mere semantic argument. Certainly the original sin that caused all man's subsequent hardships and required a born-again relationship to be constructed with God in order to be saved seems a significant event fully qualified of the designation "fall from grace." Genesis does not state but implies that God did not change conditions within Eden, and therefore the expulsion was necessary for two reasons. One was so that man would experience the suffering God described. Presumably farming and toiling and so forth wouldn't have been necessary had Adam and Eve remained in the Eden paradise. The other reason for the expulsion was that God feared that if man was capable of disobeying him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then what was preventing him from also eating of the tree of life. Oddly the tree of life isn't mentioned previously, and there is no overt command to not eat of the tree of life, but the implication was that this, too, was part of God's requirements. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: We are not talking about meaning. We are talking about the facts of the story. Have you forgotten your own OP already?
quote: How can we discuss interpretation unless we discuss meaning? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
How can we discuss interpretation unless we discuss meaning? There are different levels of interpretation. This thread is only concerned with the facts of the story, not the philosophical implications.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: This thread is only concerned with the facts of the story, not the philosophical implications. Then your criticism of the "bizarre interpretations" seems out of line, since those interpretations are based on meaning. If you want to take 1984 or The Brothers Karamazov as simple comic-book fare, you're welcome to do so, but it seems like a waste of a thread. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I agree with your interpretation That's a first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Then your criticism of the "bizarre interpretations" seems out of line, since those interpretations are based on meaning Yeah, the problem is that they are based on meaning instead of looking at what the story actually relates. People come to the story with preconceived ideas as to its meaning and they twist it around to make it seem like the facts of the story are different from what they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I agree with your interpretation, and I confess puzzlement at the declaration by some that there was no fall. Well, perhaps I can explain why there was no Fall yet again. First, before eating from the Tree of Knowledge Adam & Eve, like beasts, were incapable of either sin or morality. When a beast suddenly turns on another, for example during mating season, and hurts, harms or even kills the other it is neither moral nor immoral. The beast has no knowledge of either right or wrong and is simply behaving normally. When GOD told Adam (and presumable Adam told Eve) they were morally like a one year old. They had no concept that even obedience to GOD was different than obeying any other authority figure. When later another authority figure, the serpent, tells Eve to taste the fruit, she does so, just as the one year old will take instruction from the most recent adult authority figure. This is born out in two other passages and the whole series of events after the two become aware of right and wrong. Their first thoughts are then "Ooops, we screwed up" and they hide themselves, and even try to shift blame (She told me to eat it; the serpent said it would be okay). The result is that Adam & Eve become more like God than the other beasts. Genesis 3:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Note that God says directly that they have become more like Gods and that because of that, they must be sent away from the Tree of Life and kept away from it.
Percy writes: Certainly the original sin that caused all man's subsequent hardships and required a born-again relationship to be constructed with God in order to be saved seems a significant event fully qualified of the designation "fall from grace." Original Sin is simply not a concept that all accept. I do not believe that there is any such thing, and neither did all of the Jewish scholars that lived with the story for far longer than any Christians.
Percy writes: Genesis does not state but implies that God did not change conditions within Eden, and therefore the expulsion was necessary for two reasons. Again, reading the story in Genesis I find nothing that says that conditions within the Garden were not changed. GOD says:
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your browyou will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Cursed is the ground. Not cursed is the ground outside the Garden, but cursed is the ground. The tale of the Garden of Eden is IMHO a "Just So Story". It is presented as a way of explaining certain facts of life, just as the tale in Genesis 1 explains why we have a seven day week and take the sabbath off.
Percy writes: The other reason for the expulsion was that God feared that if man was capable of disobeying him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then what was preventing him from also eating of the tree of life. Oddly the tree of life isn't mentioned previously, and there is no overt command to not eat of the tree of life, but the implication was that this, too, was part of God's requirements. Actually the Tree of Life is mentioned earlier. Genesis 2:
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. and it is specifically the Tree of Knowledge that Adam is told to leave alone while he is told that he may freely eat from the Tree of Life.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: People come to the story with preconceived ideas as to its meaning and they twist it around to make it seem like the facts of the story are different from what they are. I don't think anybody is "twisting" anything. I notice that Percy reads in a lot of "implications" that aren't really there, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Yet I approach the story without preconceived "implications" and you call that a "bizarre interpretation". The facts of the story include:
None of those facts indicate a change in circumstances. Any pre-existing circumstances are not part of the story. They may be "implied" - i.e. part of some people's preconceived notions - but they are not among the facts of the story. Edited by Ringo, : Spellling. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The facts of the story include: Women have pain in childbirth.People work hard for a living. People don't like snakes. None of those facts indicate a change in circumstances It doesn't indicate a change? That was the whole point, that life was changed. That was the punishment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: It doesn't indicate a change? Of course not. Eve hadn't had any children yet. How could pain in childbirth be a change? They had been placed in the garden for the express purpose of tending it. How could growing their own food be a change?
That was the whole point, that life was changed. That's just your preconceived notion. (And how come you get to talk about "the whole point" but I don't?) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
First, before eating from the Tree of Knowledge Adam & Eve, like beasts, were incapable of either sin or morality Then why were they punished?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
I found a good side by side comparison of the conservative and liberal interpretations of Genesis.
Genesis 3: The rise (or fall) of humanity, and original sin Here's an example:
quote: Conservative: Eve ate the apple and gave an apple to Adam. Evil entered the world for the first time. 4 The world is changed forever. Successive generations down to the present time suffer from original sin derived from Adam and Eve's sinful disobedience, some six millennia ago. This transferal of sin from the first couple to us is called "imputation." Liberal: Eve and Adam eat the fruit. This was not a sinful act on their part anymore than if a lion or a infant human ate the fruit. Neither humans at this point, or animals had any knowledge of good and evil. This act marks a major symbolic step forward for humanity: they seek to improve themselves by acquiring additional knowledge; they desired to be wise. Evil in various forms: anger, viciousness, assault, death, etc had always been present in the world. However, for the first time, Adam and Eve become aware of it. There are more comparisons if you follow that link. I'm having trouble deciding which interpretation is correct. I'm not sure but it seems that the conservative position starts with the fundemental assumption that God is omnipotent, omniscient, loving, and just and you can't make sense of the text without accepting that first. It also reads so Christian theology back into the text (ie the serpant = satan.) I'm not sure what fundemental assumptions the liberal position makes yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
That's just your preconceived notion. No, it's not. Anybody can see that God is changing things because of their behavior. What, you think he's saying, "Why did you do this?" "Well, I was beguiled." "Okay, you will give birth as normally, etc."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
Does anyone have information on how Jewish theologians reads the text? Thanks.
Edited by Clark, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: Anybody can see that God is changing things because of their behavior. Eve had had no children. There can not be a "change" before the first child.What part of that do you not understand? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024