Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
24 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,078 Year: 22,114/19,786 Month: 677/1,834 Week: 177/500 Day: 5/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why did they cover their nakedness?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 16 of 81 (469480)
06-05-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jaywill
06-05-2008 2:36 PM


Me:

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree with a deceptive advertized purpose. It was actually a tree of DEATH. To eat of it was to DIE.

You:

Then explain what god said in gen 3:22.
Look, I define myself as a literalist, ... I read and understand what's there. The rest of your post looks more like a combination of wishful thinking and bearing false witness against your own bible.

Your question is not an easy one for me. But I will express some of my thoughts on the matter. Much of this is based on what I have also learned from other wise and experienced teachers of the Bible.

"And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowedge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:9)

"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17)

God's first commandment to man concerned eating rather than conduct. Man's outcome and destiny is a matter of eating. It is a matter of what man takes into himself. To eat is to take something not you and outside of you and bring it into you for digestion, assimilation, and dispersment of its essence into your being which has ingested it.

Man's destiny here is dependent upon what he eats. In a strong sense man will become what he eats. What he eats will become a part of the constituent of his being.

The two major trees mentioned in Genesis are opposed to one another. This putting of two opposing trees in the garden, one divinely forbidden, shows:

God's greatness in giving man a free will that man may choose God willingly and not by coercion. There is a choice that man can make out of the freedom of his will to willingly choose God Himself as Divine Life.

It is not easy to see that the tree of life represents God's own divine life just from reading Genesis. But by considering the entire Bible it is easier to see that this must be the meaning of the tree of life. It represents taking into man's created vessel the uncreated eternal and divine life and nature of God so that God and man become one. God would get into the fabric of man's whole being and constitute man a deified God-Man.

Then what does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represent?

One difficulty in ascertaining this is that it seems to possess somthing of an attribute of God. As you well pointed out once man took of it God said "The man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever ..." (Gen 3:22)

The result seems so good, so noble. Man will gain something of an attribute of God - to know good and evil. Why not?

Logically I reason:

1.) The tree was forbidden by God's command.

How can they take an attribute of God and at the same time reject God's will? Can man "steal" an attribute of God's being and reject God in doing so?

2.) The tree was actually good for the bringing of death.

The fruit of the tree was not to the blessing of man. It was to the termination of man. It would bring death. It would bring the end of man's creation.

To eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man had to disobey God, reject God's authnority, ignore God's word, go against God's will, attempt to steal something that God alone has by nature of Who He is.

Now this has to be a brief post. I do not pretend that it answers all questions. Neither do I assume that I either completely understand Genesis three or am able to completely explain it.

It has to be taken in context of the whole rest of the Bible and especially the New Testament revelation of the gift of eternal life through the God/Man Jesus Christ.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the Satanic being. To eat of it was for man to take into himself the Satanic being who has the authority of death. He is in a dynamic withdrawal from God and all that He is - migrating, callapsing into a realm of death, decay, vanity, chaos, independence from God as the Source of all well being and blessing and life.

In light of the whole Bible:

To take in the tree of life was to take God's life into man that man and God could be united, mingled, blended, interwoven, and incorporated within one another.

To take in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to take in Satan and to be infested with the Satanic nature of a cosmic parasite in rebellion against God, seeking to overthrow God, seeking to withdraw from God's authority and kingdom to oppose God and usurp God's ways to be in a condition of Anti God and anti - kingdom of God.

I know that right here at this point many will object. The main objection is "This is the Hebrew Bible. Keep Satan out of it. That is a Christian concept."

Be that as it may, this is what I think is the significance in the divine revelation of the Bible as to these two trees.

Now to your specific question. Yes, Satan was like God being the highest of God's creatures. So to take Satan in was to take in an attribute of God which the rebel and revolter corrupted and used to oppose God.

"The man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ..."

If you would only think about it, I think you will see that this makes sense. The first fall of man away from God was not concerning murder, cheating, adultery, or stealing. It was not a tree of stealing. It was not a tree of gambling. It seemed so noble - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This indicates a creature who has gone another way. There is God's way. And there came into existence at some point another way. This knowledge of good and evil is terrible and horrible because it represents the other way. That is the other way besides God's way.

No matter how good it sounds, no matter how lofty it appears, no matter how nobly packaged or identified, the way not the way of God is a way of death, darkness, tragedy, chaos, and corruption.

Now having said that I will give you my opinion on how this matter MAY have developed. Let me draw a line between these two sections
==================================================================
==========================================================

MAYBE .... maybe this is how this backround of Genesis 3 came about. It is somewhat like the book of Job. In Job you have a man Job in the middle and God and Satan on either side having a kind of contest. Satan and God seem to have an agreement and a test to see what Job the man will do.

It could be that God said, Okay enemy, I will put a new creature Man on the earth. I will put two trees in his garden. One will be a tree of life - My tree. The other will be a tree of death - your tree.

Satan responds, (much like he also responded in the book of Job) " Oh no no. Do not call it a tree of Death. Call it something nice, something attractive, something like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Then perhaps God said "Okay, I will call it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But I will warn man that to eat it WILL BRING DEATH."

So a triangular situation was established with God on one side, Satan on the other side, and man in the middle with his free will. The future of the creation is enfluenced by which path the created man takes - either to obey God and partake of every blessing including the divine life of God embodied in the tree of life, or to disobey God and take the forbidden fruit of the tree of DEATH (aka the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Now this explanation below the line, comparing the backround of Genesis three to that of the book of Job, is how I feel today. I could be wrong. It is speculation on my part. And it is given to show why I believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was advertized falsly towards man. God must have permitted this. But He also strictly warned man of the true consquences of taking it. He would surely DIE.

One has to ask oneself , WHY was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there at all? Who was it for? For WHOSE food was it? It wasn't there for Adam and Eve. They were forbidden to eat of it.

Then for who was it? Did God need to eat of it? That makes little sense. God neither needs to obtain life from a tree of life or obtain knowledge of good and evil from a tree of knowledge.

If the tree is there and for no one, it is probably Satan's tree. OF course all things are ultimately under God's providence so it says:

And out of the ground of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil .... And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

The whole realm of creation was God's kingdom under God's authority. One place however was a gateway OUT of God's kingdom and into the Satanic kingdom. And the serpent was the gatekeeper.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jaywill, posted 06-05-2008 2:36 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 11:44 PM jaywill has responded
 Message 26 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 11:15 PM jaywill has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1632 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 81 (469550)
06-05-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jaywill
06-05-2008 6:28 PM


Jaywill, after painfully reading through your post there, I came to the conclusion that you agree with me. Before he ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil, he did not know good from evil. Only after eating the fruit did he become like god and know good and evil.

So, again, why punish your child and his descendents if you know for a fact that he didn't know right from wrong? What does this say about god as a parent? It's a simple question, jaywill. You don't need 1,700 very abstract words to answer it.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 06-05-2008 6:28 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 06-06-2008 6:49 AM Taz has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 18 of 81 (469574)
06-06-2008 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
06-05-2008 11:44 PM



TAZ, Your tone is like you want to play hardball. So I'll play hardball with you then.

Jaywill, after painfully reading through your post there, I came to the conclusion that you agree with me. Before he ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil, he did not know good from evil. Only after eating the fruit did he become like god and know good and evil.

I already told you something like, Adam had his vital knowledge directly from God's command. What good he had to do and what bad he had to avoid was known to him, directly from the command of God.

If you want to develop a philosophy that Adam should have only understood the command not to eat the tree AFTER he ate from the tree, I'm not interested.

I'm glad you got on the second "painful" reading what I already wrote in a previous post. This is repetition.


So, again, why punish your child and his descendents if you know for a fact that he didn't know right from wrong?

I'll repeat it again. Though you said you read through more than once, I'm not sure you understand.

Adam had his directions what good to do directly from God. He had his command what not to do directly from God. Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is the knowledge that he had and needed. To eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be the cause of his death.

Do you have that?

I find that your understanding of the Bible here is very superfiscial. First of all the warning was of DEATH. You are only focusing on punishment.

Say you have a child and you tell that child not to drink a certain bottle because it is poison. If that child disregards your command and drinks, then the child has two problems.

1.) Poison has gotten into the child

2.) The child has trangressed your command.

You ask:


What does this say about god as a parent? It's a simple question, jaywill. You don't need 1,700 very abstract words to answer it.

I am here for a in depth study of the Bible. If you're just here to bolster up an accusation against God, you probably need to talk with someone else.

To drink in poison is punishment enough. It is stupid for you to blame God for punishing Adam when it is the DEATH that he has taken in against God's warning of love, which itself is "punishing" him.

How dense can you get?

On that point you should get it. The death itself that God warned him about is punishment enough. What's the matter with you?

And while you're spending so much time to meditate on how superior you are to God, the same principle that God used to discipline Adam's descendents He also used to justify them.

Through ONE man all men were constituted dying sinners. And also through ONE man Jesus Christ God is constituting all believers justified and restored to a right relationship with God and eternal life.

There is not just one sinning Adam in the Bible. There is the second man, the last Adam whose act of righteousness justifies millions freely. You can read about that in Paul's Roman epistle chapter five.

But no, I guess that's too many words for you to read about. How much more convenient to join in an pass blame of on God for the wrong choice of Adam's free will.

Adam pass on the blame on his wife. The wife passed on the blame on to the serpent. And you Johnny Come Lately think you're real smart to pass on the blame to the "poor parent" God.

How come your so dense that you can't see that taking DEATH into a man after being warned not to, is bringing punishment onto oneself?

And how come you don't give equal time to study the plan of salvation unveiled in the whole rest of the Bible. The Bible didn't end with Genesis chapter three you know?

Too many words for you. That's all. Not that there is not more to speak of. But that's all I'll write in this post since you want to make light of my labors and time spent.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 11:44 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 6:05 PM jaywill has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1632 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 19 of 81 (469653)
06-06-2008 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jaywill
06-06-2008 6:49 AM


jaywill writes:

I already told you something like, Adam had his vital knowledge directly from God's command. What good he had to do and what bad he had to avoid was known to him, directly from the command of God.


I'm guessing you have never had children or babysat any of them, because you clearly have no idea what kind of mentality children have.

I have a 6 year old nephew. One time we babysat him so his parents could go out on a romantic evening. I let him play with my bird and before I know it he began to pull the feathers off the bird. I told him to stop and explained to him that it's wrong to do that because pulling feathers out of the bird would hurt it. He nodded so I assumed he would stop. And before I know it, he had gotten into the cage again and had started pulling out the bird's feathers. I told him to stop and asked him to repeat what I told him. He said I told him not to pull feathers out of the bird. I asked him why he shouldn't do it and he said because it hurts the bird just like when he has a boo boo.

Understanding an instruction and the reasoning behind the instruction and actually knowing the difference between the right and wrong actions are 2 different things. Kids lack the impulse control (commonly referred to as the conscience) to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. You can explain to right from wrong to them all you want, but in the end it takes time and experience for them to develop a conscience.

Nobody is disputing with you that Adam got specific instruction from god to not eat the forbidden fruit. What I am disputing with you is whether Adam actually could tell the difference between right and wrong in regard to his actions. And clearly, that passage in Gen 3 confirmed that only after eating the fruit did Adam know good and evil, right and wrong.

If you want to develop a philosophy that Adam should have only understood the command not to eat the tree AFTER he ate from the tree, I'm not interested.

Just so you want to play dumb again, let me repeat. Understanding an instruction and actually knowing why following the instruction is right are 2 completely different things. Kids demonstrate to us everyday that they can understand right down to the detail the instructions that we give them. What they often have trouble doing is following those instructions because they don't know any better. That's why we treat them like children. That's why when a child does something bad in public we blame the parents.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 06-06-2008 6:49 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 06-06-2008 8:43 PM Taz has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 81 (469663)
06-06-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


Cavediver writes:

Why did Adam and Eve feel the need to cover their sexual organs upon realising that they were naked? From where did this specific sense of shame come? Why did they not cover their noses? This obviously makes complete sense when Genesis is regarded as the just-so story of the Jewish oral tradition. But if it is regarded as literal truth??? Anyone? Anyone?

1. After the fall there came a bent to sin. Likely one purpose was to discourage adultery, bigamy, fornication, etc, essentially to prevent humanity from becoming a rabbitry of sorts such as the direction it's going these days in the world.

2. It was God to whom they were concerned and it was God who instilled the guilt in them so as to effect his purpose for them covering themselves.

For what it's worth, the reason God insisted on the animal skins in place of plant skins was likely related to the requirement for animal sacrifice for atonement/covering of their sins since that had become a factor at that time.

Who killed the first animal? Likely God, when he prepared the clothing of skins for them.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 7:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1632 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 81 (469669)
06-06-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-06-2008 6:43 PM


Buzsaw writes:

For what it's worth, the reason God insisted on the animal skins in place of plant skins was likely related to the requirement for animal sacrifice for atonement/covering of their sins since that had become a factor at that time.


There's a simpler explanation than this, Buz. Have you ever gone backpacking in a forest somewhere? After a while, you learn to instinctively avoid skin contact with a lot of the plants out there. Just imagine having to scratch your penis constantly to satisfy the itch.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 6:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 22 of 81 (469687)
06-06-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
06-06-2008 6:05 PM


I'm guessing you have never had children or babysat any of them, because you clearly have no idea what kind of mentality children have.

I raised two children who are now adults in their twenties.
Plus we are foster parenting four children right now, two toddlers and two elementary age girls.

Any more perceptive assumptions ?


I have a 6 year old nephew. One time we babysat him so his parents could go out on a romantic evening. I let him play with my bird and before I know it he began to pull the feathers off the bird. I told him to stop and explained to him that it's wrong to do that because pulling feathers out of the bird would hurt it. He nodded so I assumed he would stop. And before I know it, he had gotten into the cage again and had started pulling out the bird's feathers. I told him to stop and asked him to repeat what I told him. He said I told him not to pull feathers out of the bird. I asked him why he shouldn't do it and he said because it hurts the bird just like when he has a boo boo.

Was your nephew born before the fall of Adam or after?

If your nephew was born after the fall of Adam as a descendent of fallen mankind, that would help explain his tendency to react to your law adversely, on general principle.

Your nephew is a typical sinner who needs salvation in Christ.


Understanding an instruction and the reasoning behind the instruction and actually knowing the difference between the right and wrong actions are 2 different things. Kids lack the impulse control (commonly referred to as the conscience) to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. You can explain to right from wrong to them all you want, but in the end it takes time and experience for them to develop a conscience.

You very much want to change this into a discussion of child psychology don't you?

Maybe you can take it up with someone else. I don't think that child psychology, either before the fall of man or after the fall of man, is the real key to understanding Genesis three.


Nobody is disputing with you that Adam got specific instruction from god to not eat the forbidden fruit. What I am disputing with you is whether Adam actually could tell the difference between right and wrong in regard to his actions. And clearly, that passage in Gen 3 confirmed that only after eating the fruit did Adam know good and evil, right and wrong.

There is a line in the sand that Adam crossed when he ate of the fruit that was forbidden to him.

All I know is that on the obedient side of the line, he was innocent. He could look at the tree, sing about the tree, dream about the tree, talk about the tree, he could do whatever he wished - and he was still innocent.

Once he crossed the line and ATE of the tree, before God he was no longer innocent. That's the way the story goes.

Your philospphy that Adam should not have had the knowledge to obey God until AFTER he disobeyed God and ate of the tree that would give him that knowledge is mildly interesting, being somewhat circular.

But things didn't happen the way you imagine they logically should have happened. Whatever you want to say about Adam, as long as he was on the obedient side of the command to not eat of the fruit, he was innocent.

At any rate God is the Creator who designed the human conscience and human intellect in babies, children, teenagers and adults. So I don't think God needs to sit at my feet and learn a thing or two about child psychology either from Charles Dobson or Dr. Spock. He's the Creator.

This is how His word relates to us that first human parents went off. Do I understand exhaustively everything about the account? No I don't. I think I have the basics of it.

Me:

If you want to develop a philosophy that Adam should have only understood the command not to eat the tree AFTER he ate from the tree, I'm not interested.

You:

Just so you want to play dumb again, let me repeat.

You're really acting dumb to assume that I never raised children.


Understanding an instruction and actually knowing why following the instruction is right are 2 completely different things.

On this side of the fall of man we are making assumptions about a state of the human personality which we have never known.

I don't know HOW Much Adam understood. You're theory of God = not as good a parent as ME! I think is kind of dumb and an extension of the "pass the blame - take no responsibility" attitude of the world's first sinning human beings.


Kids demonstrate to us everyday that they can understand right down to the detail the instructions that we give them.

"Kids" on which side of the fall of man?

Any "kids" you claim to be expert in as to behavior are the fallen "kids" who are descendents of Adam.

On the obedient side of the line Adam was innocent. Once he crossed the line and disobeyed and ate, he was no longer innocent.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with God's plan for the creation of the first human being. He was not created guilty. He was not created a sinner. He was created as a pristinely designed human being who had only ONE clear instruction given to his free will. "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you do you will surely die."

Now he's dying and you come to blame God for not being as good a baby sitter as you. Give me a break.


What they often have trouble doing is following those instructions because they don't know any better. That's why we treat them like children. That's why when a child does something bad in public we blame the parents.

We have never known what it was like to be a perfectly created human being directly from God with a simple instruction from God concerning ONE matter.

I don't think you can look through our perspective AFTER this damaging fall has happened to the human race and expect to be an expert on what an unfallen human should have behaved.

You boasted about being a literalist. Do you mean you are a literalist as long as you can accumulate good arguments against God?

Do you mean that you are a literalist as long as it serves your purpose to blame God, undermind God, accuse God, charge God with poor babysitting or parenting skills? You mean you're a literalist as long as it serves your purpose to accumulate debates against Christians?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 6:05 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 9:41 PM jaywill has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1632 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 81 (469695)
06-06-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jaywill
06-06-2008 8:43 PM


jaywill writes:

You boasted about being a literalist. Do you mean you are a literalist as long as you can accumulate good arguments against God?


No, I'm a literalist in the sense that I read what's there and not add stuff of my own into the story. When I was in college, I took some creative writing and literature classes with english majors. It always amazed and amused me that english majors could come up with so much bullshit to write about nothing. You are a perfect demonstration of that. God in gen 3 clearly said that Adam finally know right and wrong only after he ate the fruit. Somehow, you wrote 1,700 words in tangent sentences and then concluded out of the blue that Adam knew right from wrong before "the fall" even though the book of Gen said nothing about that. In essence, you are in fact calling god a liar in Gen 3. The only thing you ever said that came close to supporting your claim was when you said Adam named all the animal in the garden, thus implicating that he had more intelligence than a child. But you see, intelligence does not define conscience.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of this. I'm sure you will conjure up another thousand plus word post to respond to this one. You have my permission to have the last word. Unlike Bill OReilly, I will not interrupt your last word.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 06-06-2008 8:43 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jaywill, posted 06-06-2008 9:56 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 24 of 81 (469696)
06-06-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taz
06-06-2008 9:41 PM


Bye.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 9:41 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 4067 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 25 of 81 (472012)
06-19-2008 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


As I read Genesis, Adam and Eve weren't the first people - only the first of God's chosen people. They were chosen to take care of his garden. Outside Eden there was a world of people. Until they ate from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil if you prefer), they were unable to recognize that they were naked. Once eating the fruit they realized that they needed clothes to avoid causing sexual arousal of others and the conflicts that their appearance would cause. In this context it makes sense even if you question the accuracy of the story.

I just stumbled on this thread and apologize to anyone who may have related these thoughts already in this or other threads.

Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1105 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 26 of 81 (472827)
06-24-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jaywill
06-05-2008 6:28 PM


Naughty God
jaywill writes:

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree with a deceptive advertized purpose.

Please forgive me if you have reconsidered your position since posting to this thread but I could not help noticing that after writing the above, you posted the following:

"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Jehovah who called it "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil?" Wasn't it Jehovah who advertized the Tree, even telling Adam where to find it? (Gen 3:3) And you don't hear the Serpent calling it by any name at all. Adam and Eve knew about the tree and where to find it because God told them.

Thus, it is Jehovah (AKA 'the LORD') who tempted Adam. Maybe that's why The Lord's Prayer includes the phrase: "Lead us not into Temptation."

Such a Naughty God. :laugh:


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 06-05-2008 6:28 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 06-25-2008 3:20 AM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 28 by jaywill, posted 06-25-2008 6:20 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1632 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 81 (472834)
06-25-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by doctrbill
06-24-2008 11:15 PM


Re: Naughty God
doctbill writes:

Thus, it is Jehovah (AKA 'the LORD') who tempted Adam. Maybe that's why The Lord's Prayer includes the phrase: "Lead us not into Temptation."


OMFG, I've never noticed that before!


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 11:15 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 28 of 81 (472904)
06-25-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by doctrbill
06-24-2008 11:15 PM


Re: Naughty God
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Jehovah who called it "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil?" Wasn't it Jehovah who advertized the Tree, even telling Adam where to find it? (Gen 3:3) And you don't hear the Serpent calling it by any name at all. Adam and Eve knew about the tree and where to find it because God told them.

I prefaced my little talk about Satan desireing to call the tree of death something more positive, with saying I could be wrong and that this was my imagination of a possibility.

Question is WHO warned man ACCURATELY of the results of eating the tree ?

I mean it was God who called the tree whatever it was called. But He told them what WOULD happen if they ate - DEATH. Therefore there was on deception.

Compare that now with how the serpent spoke of the tree - "You will not surely die ..."

Thus, it is Jehovah (AKA 'the LORD') who tempted Adam. Maybe that's why The Lord's Prayer includes the phrase: "Lead us not into Temptation."

Such a Naughty God.

You're gleeful accusation falls flat on its face. Not clever.

Yes, God DID speak of the tree by name. However, He warned them what would happen.

Anyway you cut it the responsibiity is Adam's for eating the tree that brought him into death. Man is still trying to make excuses. Man is still trying to blame God for his own wrong choice.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 11:15 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 06-25-2008 11:06 PM jaywill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1105 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 29 of 81 (472938)
06-25-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jaywill
06-25-2008 6:20 PM


Re: Naughty God
You are quite the back-peddler Jay.

You strongly asserted that to call it The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was False Advertizing.

Now you attempt to say that you did not.

You claim that Jehovah accurately predicted the result of eating the fruit. But he didn't.

Jehovah said, "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die."

The Serpent said, "You certainly won't die but you will become as Gods."

And what happened after Adam ate the fruit? He went on living for a long, long, time. And Jehovah himself commenting on the situation said,

"Look, the man has become like one of us."

Jehovah called it wrongly.

The Serpent called it rightly.

Jehovah was deceptive.

And the Serpent told the truth.

Deal with it.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jaywill, posted 06-25-2008 6:20 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 9:09 AM doctrbill has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 30 of 81 (472976)
06-26-2008 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by doctrbill
06-25-2008 11:06 PM


Re: Naughty God
You are quite the back-peddler Jay.

You strongly asserted that to call it The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was False Advertizing.

Without me going back to read through many posts, yes I did say that. Then I gave a little talk about what I imagined may have been the case. I compared Genesis three with the book of Job. And I said perhaps the name "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was euphamistic name suggested by God's enemy.

I was very careful to specify that this was only my speculative imagination. Do you recall me writing that?

So if you want to hold my feet to the fire then let's discard that excusion altogether.

To be fair we are only told that God told man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are not told where its name came from.

Okay. It is first called that by God. I concede that. That is all the text says.


Now you attempt to say that you did not.

To repeat: Okay. It is first called that by God. I concede that. That is all the text says. Are we in agreement at this point?


You claim that Jehovah accurately predicted the result of eating the fruit. But he didn't.

Why not?


Jehovah said, "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die."

The Serpent said, "You certainly won't die but you will become as Gods."

And what happened after Adam ate the fruit? He went on living for a long, long, time. And Jehovah himself commenting on the situation said,

This is really another argument that you are embarking on. This is the issue of how should we interperet the phrase "in the day". Should we take that to mean within 24 hours.

It is also a matter of what is "die"? Does that mean that a process commences the climax of which is the failure of the heart to beat anymore?

I think you are raising two objections:

1.) Was God truthful to say "in the day".

2.) Was God truthful to say "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die."

Linking these objections into my previous statements, I think your position is that if these two statements were not true then God did not accurately warn them about the true nature of the tree.

Is that a fair representation of your argument?


"Look, the man has become like one of us."

This is a good point. After eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God did actually say that they had become like one of Us.

I have noticed that for a long time. So that particular part of the nature of the tree was true. If I said or implied that that portion of the nature of the tree was not true that would have been an error.

You know the most dangerous kind of lie is the lie with an element of truth in it. It was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil regardless of Who named it.


Jehovah called it wrongly.

The Serpent called it rightly.

Jehovah was deceptive.

And the Serpent told the truth.

Deal with it.

I deal with it by laughing and shaking my head at your twisting of the Bible.

Now let's see what the text says:

And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!

Did they surely die? Or did they NOT surely die?

They surely DID die. The serpent lied by saying "You shall not surely die!" Now you deal with it.

Notice the serpent did NOT say "You shall not surely die [TODAY]!" The serpent merely said "You shall not surely die!" PERIOD.

Did they die or did they not die?

Now we come to this advertizing bit. I conceded that we are only told that God called the tree what it was. However contrast the serpent's advertizing with God's truth in advertizing:

Jehovah God:

"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16)

The Serpent:

"You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen.3:4b,5)

Eve:

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make [oneself] wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate."

If you had been in the place of Eve, would you have reasoned as she did? Would you have said to yourself:

"Well, God must be lying. This tree will not cause me to die. Rather it will bestow upon me the knowledge of good and evil and I will be like God.

God's heart is not good towards me. God is trying to restrict me by scaring me that I will die. But this serpent here has said that I will not surely die."

I think your attempt to make an issue of a technicality that they did not die on that particular afternoon is at best a flimsy tissue excuse to boast that the serpent told the truth.

You probably do not do well with salespeople.

Would you reason " Well, we won't die today. Maybe we'll die some other day. Big deal. Nobody lives forever. We have to die sometime. So why don't we just eat and get the benefit today and forget about the death part?"

Is this how you would have reasoned?

God spoke the truth. The serpent did what he has been doing ever since. Took part of the truth and hid within its a lie.

Yes they did become as God knowing good and evil. God did not say that they would not gain the knowledge of good and evil. God said that they would surely die in the day they ate of it. So concerning gaining the knowledge there was no contradiction.

Concerning dying there was. The serpent lied and God spoke the truth.

Now to your little technicality: "But, THEY DIDN"T DIE ON THAT DAY! Gotcha!!"

Two objections I have to this argument:

1.) Look up all the possible meanings of the Hebrew word translated into our English "day" in that passage.

In my Chaldee / Hebrew dictionary to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance that word translated "day" needs to be considered sometimes in the context of how it is used.

When the Bible says. There was evening and there was morning - one day. The context and usage is pretty clear that a solar day as we know it is to be understood.

Now you also have the same word used Genesis 5:2 speaking of the heavens and the earth "in the day when they were created". Now which day would that be? We were just told that in six days God made the heavens and the earth.

According to the dictionary these words also may be indicated by that word YOME - season, age, space of time defined by an associated word, process of time, while, time, even full year.

Check under Entry 3117 - YOWM inth Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary section of Strong's Exhuastive Concordance.

So my first objection is that we might not be able to insist that the solar day is intended in Genesis 2:17.

My second objection is that even if it DID mean a solar day, there is plenty of biblical confirmation that God regards the sinner as dead spiritually - "Let the dead bury their own dead" or "dead in offenses and sins"

To you this may be no big deal. But to God it is a big deal. This is the beginning of the process of death which commences in spiritual separation and which culminates in physical expiration.

The footnote of the Recovery Version on Gen. 2:17 reads:

Refering not to the death of man's body but to the deadening of man's spirit (Eph. 2:1), which leads ultimately to the death of man's entire being - spirit, soul, and body (Heb. 9:27); Rev. 20:14) ...

At any rate Adam did surely die. And the serpent had specifically said that they would not.

The serpent lied. And I think you should be careful of some used car lots.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 06-25-2008 11:06 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by rueh, posted 06-26-2008 11:56 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 33 by doctrbill, posted 06-26-2008 2:38 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019