The first 3 chapters of Genesis

He wouldn't have to understand death to recognize it as something ominous. God's tone would tell him that.What, do you think he interpreted "death" as though it meant something good?

Does it say in Genesis that they were like beasts and like one-year olds? They were not like beasts. For one thing, they could talk. That makes them very unlike beasts.It talks about them having dominion over the beasts. They don't seem to be described as beasts or one-year olds to me.

How do you know that?

Not true. They knew one comandment and they knew they weren't supposed to break it.

All this is very speculative indeed. You can't be picking and choosing this way amongst the different passages, and claiming that I can't use a comment in the first chapter to explain something in the second chapter. The point is, what are the facts of the story? It doesn't matter if it makes God look bad or not.Adam and Eve are not described as beast-like or as one year olds. They are like a King and Queen having dominion over all. They knew very well that "death" was something terrible even if they didn't understand exactly what it was. They knew very well that God had given a solemn commandment and that the consequences were ominous.That's why the serpent told Eve that they would NOT die.They had all the "tools" to obey that they needed. They were equipped with reason.The question is, what does this knowledge of good and evil consist of, according to the story? What changes take place in the minds of Adam and Eve after they eat the fruit? They become ashamed of being naked. Apparently the lack of knowledge of good and evil has to do with a lack of sexual knowledge.

Yes. No need. I got it, finally.Jar is also saying that their being punished makes no sense in that it makes God out to be a jerk, for Adam and Eve could not know that they should not disobey God. And since God is not a jerk, obviously there is another, more allegorical, meaning involved. All we have to do is look at little harder and we will find it. And Jar has no doubt found it. And no doubt it fits in perfectly with his modernized version of Christianity.

The reason for this misunderstanding, kuresi, is that Jar likes to make coy, cryptic remarks. He likes to insinuate an idea without committing himself to it. I suppose he thinks this is how one is supposed to argue.

For a while he was, particularly on the other thread that I took some quotes from.

You weren't so definite before. Before, you said "yes and no."If you can't recall, I'll quote what you said before.

I meant "fact" in the sense of a literary fact.Did Hamlet kill Polonius? Yes, he did. That's a fact of the story.

Yes, he does. He stopped equivocating on that one point in this thread because his back got pinned to the wall and he had no choice but to admit it.He doesn't like the idea, however, because it hints at a Fall.So he decides that God is a jerk for punishing them since they are not responsible. And since he thinks God is not actually a jerk, the story must have some deeper, more esoteric meaning which will fit in with his own theology.I'll tell you what I think about this lack of knowledge of good and evil. I don't think it refers to good and evil in the general sense.
I think the meaning is much more limited. I think it refers to SEXUAL good and evil.

I see it in the change that took place in Adam and Eve once they ate the fruit. They became ashamed of their nakedness.

I didn't mean their sin was sexual. I meant their lack of knowledge was sexual. "Good and Evil" refers to sexual good and evil. Before they were sexually innocent.

This is your method of explaining it away and turning it into something more agreeable to modern sensibilites.

That's fine, but he ought not to be offering perverse interpretations of the Bible to update it.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.