ID question for creationists

I am in near complete disagreement with you on this interpretation.While Adam and Eve were innocent, God did tell the truth and the snake surely lied.I believe the best interpretation is that the tree of knowledge was the tree of false knowledge (which is that of good and evil). To remain innocent in life, as well as not judging God's creation they had to remain free from such stupid (and subjective) ideas of OBJECTIVE right and wrong. That is why God told them not to eat of that tree or they would die.The serpent merely tricked Eve emotionally with the idea that all things which can be called knowledge is real and good (ie to know GOOD and EVIL being the highest knowledge and that on the level of God) and intellectually by twisting what "to die" meant (showing quite well that equivocation can lead to a lot of bad consequences).When they "ate" the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, God was proven right and they did die. No longer did they live in a paradise, but in a sort of hell, judging all things by elevating their personal tastes to an objective standard of good and evil. Or should I say "confusing" their tastes with absolute moral judgement.I realize my interpretation is an allegorical one and not literal--- so it won't please people who have limited their understanding of the passage to "a couple people ate a piece of fruit they weren't supposed to"--- but I think it is a much better read on the intention of the passage. It's much deeper in meaning anyway.------------------
holmes

This is a terrible terrible argument. God did not say this at all.He said "on that day you shall surely die."IF the whole "tree of knowledge" story is read as an allegory, THEN more interpretations present themselves than the allegorical interpretation you have presented (where their words must be taken literally). You have done nothing to counter my read, except by saying "ain't so."I think it is a consistent and plausible read that God did not mean "your heart will explode etc etc." He was using hyperbole (which God seems wont to do) to express the weight of the consequence from "eating" from the "tree of knowledge." They would in a sense die as paradise will have ended for them.In this allegorical tale he is warning them to stay away from taking to much stock in their own beliefs, especially those regarding moral judgements of good and evil. That is HIS area and he made them to be as they are. Once they become "like Gods" they judge who they are and what he has done, and end any possibility for happiness.The Serpent is an allegorical creature for man's reasoning and misinterpretation. Eve not only overstates God's proclamation that it is mere touch that will kill her, but falls for the fallacious belief that to become like Gods in knowing good and evil is a good thing, and an equivocation between dying (literal) and dying (metaphorical). This last part may very well be to show it is the inability of humans to properly reason that leaves them open to eating such false knowledge, and why they should avoid doing so.And why does God suddenly fear that they might eat of the tree of life and live forever? Does this not make sense given the allegorical tale I outlined?It is a statement that once men accept the false knowledge of good and evil, and so become the morose judges of all creation and each other, it can only be hoped that man does not achieve the knowledge to extend life and so become exactly like Gods. They would spread more unhappiness and misery to each other and every other living thing forever, trying to make things fit their false judgements.This is almost an eastern or later Greek (epicurean) philosophy. I admit it is just one allegorical interpretation, but you have not advanced an argument against it accept by picking and choosing which is allegory and which is literal.I get your version. I presented mine in the same manner, and believe it is a more cohesive read (all allegory) as well as having a deeper meaning for humans (than God is jealous of man's potential to gain his power). I don't think you were fair in your assessment, even if you wanted to reject it on a personal level.------------------
holmes

There are many inconsistencies in the Bible, but I will let that issue slide to get to a more important point.I do not view the Bible as the work of God. I view the Bible as the work of men. Much more than that, it seems that the disjointed and inconsistent passages are actually cobbled together "fables" and "myths" from earlier sources.This leads me to believe you don't have to worry about any one passage fitting directly in with "all the rest" of the material. Hell, even if you did, biblical enthusiasts are often pointing out that things were different after the Fall, so maybe he became more honest with his threats after his first one failed to stop man.But most of these "stories" come from fables and allegories from other belief systems. And you don't need clues from the text itself, you take it by comparing the text to other fables and allegories.Why should this not be the case with the Fall? And that is how I was approaching it. There are arguably similar parallels in that "tale" to eastern, or older Greek thought. If not taken literally, why could it not be moral instruction on the vanity and illfate of those who choose to act as Gods and judge good and evil?I certainly don't take any of the rest of the Bible literally, why should I take that one more literally than the rest? What the ??????? Are you serious? God getting pissed about things man does and being judged by him makes no sense? That is pretty much the first half of the Bible.I suppose I can agree that that SHOULD make no sense, but it's all there in black and white.Then again, you aren't addressing what I said. This was an omniscient point of view stating to a being that is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, that to take on the mantle of judgement the result would be horrific. For example people can't figure out why this thing happens or that thing happens. Oh why does that fig have to be out of my reach? What will that girl think of my small dick (so maybe I'm not good enough and be judged bad, it is a shame)? etc etcAnd what would be more terrible than a creature in that imperfect position--- yet judges everything rather than accepting what life brings as if he was perfect--- than for that same creature to live forever?------------------
holmes

It does. The reading I outlined is internally consistent for the wording of that passage. If your problem is with consistency beyond the bounds of that specific tale, then what can I say? There is no concrete consistency within the Bible. The creation story itself has inconsistencies and that is the very opening!Become rambling? The Bible IS rambling. It looks suspiciously like other pieces of literature that are accumulations of many previous works patched together to look as if it is one story.This is not my simple theory and I'm not the first one to observe some rather major inconsistencies in storytelling in the Bible.If you have a problem with that, then there is nothing more I can say. You have a much wider field of adversaries on that point.Yet I feel compelled to mention my read is quite consistent with the advice from the wiseman given later in the Bible. Oh I wish I could remember the passage. It's the one turned into the song "Turn turn turn." The whole point of that is not to judge life in order to be happy. Very eastern, or early Greek (ala epicurus).In some other thread I outlined a couple other points of consistency with this view as well. But that should be enough for right now. The fact that you asked this indicates you are not understanding me. MY THEORY doesn't require an answer to any of the above.MY THEORY of what the allegorical tale might be--- based on OTHER SCHOLARLY THEORIES which state the Bible is a series of accumulated tales--- is an admonition to the reader (through allegory) that Good and Evil is false knowledge and the end of happiness for humans. One should concentrate on living and not on judging life.I offered the above explanations as something more literal interepreters might take his words to be and why they differed in how he used such words later on. Take your pick, I could care less. You continue to impress your read onto my own. My read says nothing about the relationship between god and humans, or any real sense of innocence (except in an eastern sense).Adam was told if he ate the fruit he would surely die. He sure as hell did according to the allegory. DEATH can mean an end to life as he knows it, or as it was supposed to be. Paradise was turned into hell for him as soon as he began to judge. When God found out he made it even more concrete. Or in an allegorical sense some things flowed naturally from that act... a separation of people from happiness and greater pain in what is their natural condition. This is proof you are refusing to read my posts. At any rate you have built a huge strawman to attack.I laid out quite plainly that while a GOD would have such knowledge, he also has ALL KNOWLEDGE and ALL POWER TO CHANGE THINGS.In "eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge" humans gained only the ability to JUDGE. They gained no ability to know the workings of the world like WHY things have to be the way they are. Thus their judgements will be made from very limited perspectives. And unlike a God, there is little they can do with this "knowledge."It is more than simply "ignorance is bliss", but it's similar. Some things are better left unknown when it only raises more questions you'll never have answers to, and issues you'll never be able to affect.So my own theory, even if for some reason we have to extend it to God which my theory does not say exists, ought to be acceptable to you. It says God could very well be happy. Only limited beings, even if immortal in life, would be forced into a hell where they could have had paradise instead.But I still say to you: what the ?????Your question that God would be unhappy in the longterm? Since he became enraged a little over a week into the creation of the world, then his first attempt to regain happiness was to drown all life, and his next attempt to regain happiness (as predicted in the Bible) will be to wipe out almost all life in order to start a new kingdom on earth, I'd say God has some longterm anger management issues.He says he is an angry and jealous God (oh yeah except those "consistent" parts which claim he isn't). There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza...It's a FREAKING ALLEGORY!!!!! IT IS A MORAL TALE!!!! This is like reading Aesop's fables and asking why a Fox wanted to eat grapes because no Fox would want that. It just doesn't make sense. Brilliant.But let's put that major point aside and let me turn it around on you, why on earth would he put the tree of knowledge in there anyway if he didn't want Adam or Eve to eat from it? And why did he make them capable of desiring or able to eat from it if in fact he did not want them to? THAT makes no sense either.Frankly if you can answer that question to everybody's satisfaction I'll buy you a nice big cookie.The only one I can think of is it didn't happen. It's an allegory, a fable.------------------
holmes

I think I am done with you rrhain. This makes two separate threads you have cut around my explanations in order to maintain your inability to "understand" what I am saying.Without a basic understanding of what I am saying, there is no point in having a discussion at all. Your analogy to how Aesop's fable would have to be read along the lines of my interpretation of the Bible, showed that in spades.Life is too short to try and get you to understand words and phrases and concepts so we can actually start a discussion.But I will end with this...You keep repeating that God said Adam would physically die that day, and he did not so God lied.This is YOUR interpretation. God never said "physically die" nor did he describe a physical death. This is much the same as his not describing what "day" meant (as many Xtians have argued his use of the word "day" varies from passage to passage).There are many ways of interpreting what he said. But let's say he meant physically dead.NOTE---this is where I refuse to play your "dumb" act and accept your interpretation so I can discuss something.It could very well be said that death (in the physical sense) did not exist in Eden for Adam or Eve, until after the Fall. 3:19 states that man from that point on will have to eat to live, and will eventually die.Thus God did not lie. Adam could not die, until he ate of the fruit. Then he could, and depending on his meaning of day (which is very flexibly used by God) die on that "day". I suppose that might also explain why the tree of life (which until that time had not been prohibited) suddenly was prohibited. It would have Adam regain his immortality and cheat God of his threat.Then again if it is read as a literal day in which he had to die, it means God did lie (or made an empty threat) and your interpretation is correct.It could be. That's the problem with interpretations, they all count on the "ifs" being true. There are many valid interpretations besides yours. Keeping your mind closed to alternative interpretations by shutting your ears and going "I can't hear you" is not a very good way to have people want to consider yours.------------------
holmes

This is correct. I was incorrect in saying that it necessarily meant having to eat to live. It could mean that but a better read would be inconvenience and toil.However, this changes nothing about the possibility that he was also saying from that point on they could die. Enough Xtians have made this very point (the Fall changed A&E from perfect and immortal to fallible and mortal) that it seems incredible you can't understand that interpretation.The rest of your post was (as ever) ignoring or mistating what I said and what I was describing.And this bit was priceless... My argument that the Bible is nebulous and vague makes me less credible? The text is generally considered crystal clear, particularly regarding meaning? Your interpretation may be crystal clear to you, but it ain't the only one.You accuse me of inconsistency, and refusing to stick to the issue at hand, but I have yet to see you respond in a way that resembles a real understanding of anything I wrote. In that case it is no wonder my positions seem so incomprehensible... you simply don't get what I am saying. It also seems you are the only one clueless about what I am saying, which is why I'm not thinking the problem here is me.But hey maybe it is all me. Maybe I'm your brad mcfall.Either way, bye.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-29-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 09-29-2003]

What's stupid is I'm not married to anything being said. In one thread I am explaining what someone else is saying (quite clearly I might add). In this thread I am talking about an interpretation based on a THEORY that the Bible is a series of fables, most importantly the creation stories because that was before history the writers could write could have known about.I'm simply getting frustrated that my posts are being chopped up for convenience of raising issues I already answered.But I trust you Rei. You seem on the ball about most things. Am I really not answering Rrhain's charges? Am I really being inconsistent? And is he not chopping up my posts for his own convenience?If you think he's right then I will try to give this another shot. If not, then I am done. I don't know if you were in the thread on homosexuality where Rrhain kept freaking out when me and another guy (who were both on his side by the way) used the word homosexual merely for convenience in discussion. He couldn't handle the fact that we'd accept a term for convenience, and argue about it at length!This means that while I can agree with many end conclusions he has, his method of discussion is inconvenient and terribly burdensome. In fact I still feel like we haven't actually gotten to a debate on what I was advancing in this thread. Its just too exhausting.But like I said. If you think I am in the wrong I will give it another try. This is true and unfortunately is the nature of the Bible. It can and is interpreted many different ways. One can start by assuming it is tied together with some real coherence (which requires ignoring a few obvious contradictions), or accept that it contains some contradictions as a result of its nature.Not a few scholars (and I think at least one thread at EvC) have pointed out that the Bible is cobbled together bits and pieces of text based on originally oral traditions. To make matters worse many bits and pieces seem picked up from other religions in the region at the time.The result then is not necessarily going to be a coherent piece all the way through. Editing it together brought some coherence to it, but nothing to the level that there are no deviations (even singular) throughout.There are even some scholars which have suggested that most of the Bible contains parables or fables purchased from other religions and that each section may be viewed as a separate moral tale with lessons to be learned from it alone.Only in this way do I raise the interpretation that I outlined. That Genesis, and particularly the fall, is a moral tale regarding man's desire to judge life, and that being the ultimate cause of his misery.I actually had a whole thread on this topic (I put Rrhain's name in the title but he never showed up). No one argued against this possibility, and one person actually supported this possibility, posting chunks of text in Hebrew with the translations.I realize that this is a supposition. And if it is true that every single case of using "die" means physical death, then there is reason to wonder why the editors never caught the singular discrepency in word usage in Genesis. But it does happen and given all the other inconsistencies throughout, maybe not a surprise there. In fact, if the editors were literalists missing the point of the fable, then they may have seen no inconsistency at all!This would be similar to the editors and translators who thought sodomite was as good as Qadesh, and perpetuated those kinds of mistakes throughout.Rrhain has also suggested that day always means 24 hours, but this claim is not true at all. Or at least I have seen plenty of people debating that with pretty good reason.I certainly do not believe the Bible is in any way crystal clear, even if somewhat consistent. And I wholly doubt his interpretation that the Bible says God lied to Adam and Eve because he would be jealous of their power.While I get that he is an angry and jealous God, a lying God does not make sense to me as a morality tale (and remember that was the beginning "If, then" required for the sake of argument), or as a literal-word-based religious tradition. If anything, it seems that if it was to be taken literally, then he simply told them not to, and they did. Whether they would have been strong is beside the point. Maybe it was just God's personal stash. We don't know the reason and can't look into it.------------------
holmes

I could kiss you Ned. That's the way it looks to me.------------------
holmes

At first this comment enraged me. How could YOU possibly not know what I was talking about.Then I looked back at the "same sex marriage" thread in Coffee House and found indeed I was wrong.Doctrbill did not issue his "don't attack your teammates" comment in regards to the use of homosexuality, it was ANOTHER issue within the same thread that I had forgotten about (perhaps thankfully).You can look through the numerous posts (start at the end of the thread if you want) to review the insanity.First you refused to accept the use of the word "homosexual" for purposes of convenience, repeatedly chastising me that the term did not exist in ancient times (despite my repeated explanations that I understood that very well and used it for covenience).THEN it got into a brewhaha over the whether David was gay. Both Doctrbill and I saw your point and simply said it could be but was not conclusive. You went on clipping posts and playing games with semantics.It was during this that Doctrbill made his comment. Neither of us could understand the lengths you would go to stick to one single interpretation.It was frustrating.I have stated my position on Genesis.Your post does not seem to add anything new. Unless you are trying to say that like Qadesh, the specific word used for "die" and "day" can only really be used as physical death and 24 hour day then you might have a point. That is, it is not just because of its use elsewhere in the text (which honestly is what you seemed to be saying), but literal translation of the exact Hebrew words COULD NOT be used in other ways.Frankly I would like outside corroboration on that as someone posting images of the early Hebrew texts, thought my interpretation could be true and did NOT say those words were limited as you may be suggesting.Then again, your final statement supports my entire contention. Even if if the original Hebrew words were physical death, and 24 hr day, then it could have been a mistranslation (too concrete of wording) from the oral tradition.But even more to the point, the literal wording makes no difference if it is a fable. That would just indicate the strength of the warning, with the real understanding being the underlying message that to do such a thing (to gain knowledge of good and evil) is to lose your world.I am too frustrated to continue arguing about this or the other topic. I'm confident people can figure out what each of our positions are and more words are not going to get us further. Even my words above do nothing to really advance my position, just explain it some more. I'm done explaining.NosyNed seems to understand the situation perfectly.------------------
holmes

Okay, so am I right or am I right?Did I not answer why that one instance of "die" and "day" MAY have some other meaning than physical death and 24 hr day? And that, even if such terms are used that way in every other usage throughout the Bible?Go ahead and be brutal if I am wrong, but if this really is my problem I'd like to know.------------------
holmes