Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death before the 'Fall'?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 141 of 230 (286082)
02-13-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by ReverendDG
02-12-2006 10:33 PM


but he died 900 years later as the quotation says it would be the day they ate from the tree not 900 years later! - ergo as before god lied
This entire debate occured long ago at EvC, and my guess is it'll end the same way, but I can try.
The idea that God must have lied is only one interpretation. There is no reason why day has to be literal or die must mean a literal physical death.
And in any case, there is no reason why God could not have meant what he said, or felt what he said, and then changed his mind when the time came that he had to mete out punishment. Like a parent who orders a child not to do something or they will face a certain punishment, only to find they cannot carry through with that exact punishment. That is hardly lying.
The only way it could have been lying is if it was supposed to be a prediction of specific literal meaning, and being omniscient he knew it was not true. I find it hard to believe that was the intent and meaning of that passage.
And of course this is only an issue for those who believe it is real history, rather than just an allegorical tale.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ReverendDG, posted 02-12-2006 10:33 PM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 8:23 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 145 by purpledawn, posted 02-13-2006 10:43 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 143 of 230 (286107)
02-13-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
02-13-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Such a rousing topic!
Hmmmm....Truths or generalizations?
Either really. I was emphasizing that characters, objects, and action were potentially symbolic rather than literal.
Seeing as how this is a Bible Study, however, we can believe whatever we want. It need not be proven.
Yes, let me make clear I am not arguing one way or the other whether the passage is about real factual events or something less than that. I was just questioning the idea that regardless of its reality, whether the passage inherently suggests god was "lying", with no other valid interpretations. As it turns out the more one views it as just a story, even ir representative of life (or moral) truths, the less it is mandatory to view god as "lying".
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-13-2006 04:15 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 8:23 AM Phat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 183 of 230 (286772)
02-15-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by ReverendDG
02-14-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Did God Lie?
i know there are more than one interpreatation but why would you try to change the meaning?
That's certainly pot calling kettle black. There is absolutely no reason to believe yours is the first and automatic interpretation of what was written, and someone else's interpretation is to inherently change its meaning.
He may very well have meant what he said, but then could not bring himself to do it after all, or thought it wasn't sufficient later on. Heck, everything might have changed (for him) seeing that they did not choose to eat of it all on their own, but were duped into doing so by the serpent.
Why would that be any less valid an interpretation from the start? The idea that he lied is as much as an impression of external items on the text as any other background assumption.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ReverendDG, posted 02-14-2006 3:21 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 184 of 230 (286780)
02-15-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
02-15-2006 4:00 AM


Re: Parent's Perrogative
That would impute an entirely different motivation on god that is not justified in the text.
Based on what? Your interpretation of what God is and says? There is no singular correct interpretation and asserting yours is the correct one is bizarre.
You have moved well beyond the text to say that he lied. Show where it ever says "And then God lied" or something like that. All we know is that he said something at one time regarding a hypothetical situation, and then did not do exactly what he suggested he might do when confronted with the real event.
It could have been a change of heart due to mercy, or perhaps a greater cruelty. Maybe he felt oblivion wasn't as good as removing them from paradise first.
It might also be mentioned that the condition was different. He told them not to eat it and the text pretty plainly states they were duped into it. The serpent wanted to create a break between them and God, and did so by convincing them to eat it. God may very well have seen this as a reason not to have held them as accountable and so worthy as great a punishment.
What I find interesting is that you make this claim of falsehood against God, when it is not in the text,and suggest the serpent was somehow truthful when the text explicitly describes the snake as less than honest.
Given the bloody-mindedness of the god described in the Old Testament, there is no real justification to say that "god didn't really mean it" in Genesis 3. By all indications, he really did.
Sure there is justification. God shifts from merciful to cruel throughout the old testament. You can't say here he was cruel and so he must always be.
And that is not to mention what I was arguing above and which purpledawn seemed to be suggesting (as he was agreeing with me) that though he might have "meant it" when he said it, when confronted with the situation he changed his mind. And indeed maybe all he "meant" was to put the scare into them so they would not think of doing it. There is no suggestion in the Bible that he could not have been capable of such activity.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2006 4:00 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024