Death before the 'Fall'?

Hypthetical speculations are interesting! The universe existed before life, but life (mind) was unaware of it. Which brings up the question of which came first: Awareness or Matter? Maybe a bit off topic, yet this philosophical question frames the belief systems of many philosophies and religions. If we define God (or His Spirit) as "good", you are right. If Man had known "good" he never would have fell for the sales pitch of the serpent! Symbolically, of course! (God forbid we think literally! ) Just think of the responsibility of knowing GOOD! If we believe that GOOD is a personified reality and not an imagined concept, that is!

Well, we could always take the Dantes Inferno Hell Test"When the passions become masters, they are vices."
-Blaise Pascal

​

"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction."
-Blaise PascalYou have a good point, Rrhain. Technically, a "Bible Study" would invove an analysis of what the Bible actually says and/or means. Traditionally, many Christian scholars have attributed the pre-Fall Adam+Eve with having had a supernatural "covering" which was the Holy Spirit.I will have to do some research and get back to you on where "they" actually base this information on.....Thats one thing that I like about EvC..when I am in church, I am with people whom all are in agreement with me about what the Bible means.I will say that often the feeling is that the wisdom is gleaned off of an "imparted Spiritual truth" coming through them and or myself as we extrapolate on our interpretations of the scripture.It is often good to have neutral and unbiased questions as to the meaning of the text, however. It is quite true that much of what we Christians teach each other is passed down as an oral tradition that has no written grounds but that is "commonly attributed" to the Holy Spirit and to commonly accepted beliefs.This message has been edited by Phat, 02-09-2006 08:38 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

We have been having a discussion in Administrative forum about the difference between Bible Study and Biblical Accuracy/Innerrency. Admittedly, I made the mistake of mixing the two up in this thread. I wanted to philosophically connect with Rrhain rather than stick to strict faith about the Bible and its meaning---interjecting a bit of humor and lighthearted insights into the mix. Jaywill, on the other hand, is passionate about his faith-based interpretations of scripture (Genesis in particular) and showed me how aptly this topic belongs in Bible Study rather than in Accuracy/Innerrency.In Brief: Bible Study is for the faith based interpretations (philosophically and theologically) of the text.
Accuracy/Innerrency is the scholars and their attempts at explaining the history of the authors, the identity of the authors, and the secular based questions and academic disciplines surrounding the text.I am thus attempting to be philosophical rather than strictly theological in this thread, and I am seeing Rrhain in a new light as I watch him artfully critique the text (philosophically) while Jaywill attempts to defend the text while perhaps clarifying and internalizing his own beliefs in the process.(BTW, Jaywill, Rrhain used to annoy me insanely when he tore into my pre-conceived beliefs that were taught to me by others concerning the common sense--or lack of--in Bible Stories. I now respect him more for causing me to actually think.)I believe that the Bible influences and speaks to each of us in a different way, and I am now unafraid to throw challenges out to its meanings and authenticities. Think about it like this: IF the book actually is divinely inspired and without major contradictions, it SHOULD be immune from attack and discredibility, right? Here are my concerns about Genesis:1) I know that I am in Bible Study and that we are discussing faith based interpretations of the text.
I have no problem with "In the Beginning, God created...". It makes much more sense to me to declare that In the Beginning, God rather than In the Beginning, matter.As to the inevitable followup question of "Who created God?" I would assume that this question is a personal matter between the inquisitive human and the Omnipotant God. It is a philosophical question designed to be asked of God and not from other clueless humans.But...2) If we are quite apparantly one little planet in one system of planets around a medium sized star in the midst of a hundred billion estimated stars in our galaxy alone which quite appears to be one of a hundred billion galaxies, why should I think that a God so powerful as to create such a vast array of matter and reality need to create a woman out of a rib? Symbolic, perhaps?3) If the authors were divinely inspired, why did they describe much of the life around them in such a limited way? Was it part of Gods overall purpose? And why does God limit His revelation to us to this one set of books and writings? Can He not speak to each of us in a unique and internal way concerning His character, love, and purpose for each of us?4) I believe that much of the Bible was written for us (as a study tool concerning human nature and fallibility) but that only some of the Bible was actually written TO us. If we were ever to actually be judged for our actions, we could say "But God, it was a poorly written fable? However was I supposed to know?" God would then judge you based on the stuff that you read that you actually take seriously. Even human teachers give their students a break! What makes us think that God won't allow us many chances to "pass" ? 5) In conclusion, whenever debates about this sort of stuff arise, I pay attention to the attitude behind the points and assertions made, rather than simply the philosophies and assertions themselves. That being said, I believe that Genesis can be a tool that God uses to teach me certain points that He wants me to know, but I also believe that He never intended to limit me to Genesis in regards to my understanding of Him. (or of myself) If I am wrong, I repent, God!This message has been edited by Phat, 02-12-2006 07:36 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

OK...IF we conclude that Genesis was divinely inspired, was it written for the people of a time long ago, or was it written for the modern rationally minded person of today?The rational mind would ask: Why does it take God 7 days---be they 24 hours or 7000 years or 17 billion years---to create everything? Surely such an omnipotant Creator could create everything in 7/10 of a millisecond as well as a 17 billion year Big Bang? Personally, I never thought about it much...and I have never had a problem with theories and science clashing with God.Why should we humans try so hard to defend Biblical Literalism? Is not our God more than capable of defending Himself and His eternal purpose??Perhaps He foreknew that issues would arise and He intends for it to be another test (like the story of the Fall) to see how multiple cultures within humanity will get along.If I did not believe in the Bible, would I ever meet Jesus?

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

You can't be accused of being stupid, thats for sure! My original statement which many of the administrators agree on is this one: You reply to me quite well with this statement: Yes. Of course, I brought up this discussion in another thread that I revived here. I will agree with you that the interpretations of Genesis are not written in stone and that a good discussion of them is quite proper and philosophical, (seeing as how accuracy/innerrency is a science forum topic).In fact, the sentence that explains the Accuracy/Innerrency forum reads like this: We are thus quite proper in discussing the philosophy of the text and the intent thereof in this Bible Study Forum.
(No science involved here....God can't be "proven" anyway. He cannot be disproven, either! ) Agreed. Philosophically, I am assuming that in these early stories, God is also a character...much like the people on the train! How these early authors interpreted god is a matter open for discussion. I can't conclude, based upon my belief, that God would ever lie---despite your well framed argument to jaywill (to the contrary) here. Concerning our debate on what a "good" Bible Study is:You love plays, and I am reminded of the play Inherit The Wind I see our controversy over the intent of Bible Study as a disagrement between two writers over the setting of our Bible Study group. While I see it as happening in a traditional (perhaps fundamental or charismatic) church setting where people such as you would be censored and not allowed to speak out, you may see it as happening in a critical classroom type of a setting (such as Brians Theology class) where rousing and critical debate and discussion are actively encouraged!
Just so you know, even though I see the Bible Study as strictly faith (and dogmatic tradition) based, I would never kick you out of it as many fundies and church folk would do.Now on to our continuation of the philosophies behind the Bible and what it actually says and what it actually means to each of us!

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Sometimes I really love debates! I can't keep up with you without my trusty friend, Mr. Dictionary! Hmmmm....Truths or generalizations? Fundamental literalists would assert that the Bible writings, stories, parables, and allegories are truths in the absolute sense. This would be a belief.Critical thinkers would probably assert that the allegories are generalizations formed through the lens of the knowledge of that culture at that time. Of course. We DO know that the authors themselves were definite historical figures, but we do not know much about them apart from the text itself, in many instances. Seeing as how this is a Bible Study, however, we can believe whatever we want. It need not be proven.This message has been edited by Phat, 02-13-2006 06:28 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Hmmm...seems plausible! And then I am reminded of this N.T. verse: The word vine, although not quite the same as a tree, is symbolic also..Trees have sap or nourishment that flow to the branches which bear fruit. Vines also are the bearers of fruit. the vintage is akin to the quality of the "flow" of the substance of life. Our language would even say that these words all have the same "root"! Highly symbolic!

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago