The first 3 chapters of Genesis

That has been covered in this thread several times. In Message 37 I said: In Message 80 I said: In Message 207 I said: Until they had the ability to know right from wrong they simply had no way of judging. They were innocent. It would be like telling a one year old that if she puts the rubber ducky in her mouth she will surely die. It might even have some influence for a moment, until something else comes up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

It says in Genesis 2&3 that they did not know right from wrong. If they do not know right from wrong they are not capable of obedience.You are also mixing up the stories, once again changing the goalposts and trying to sneak one by. What you are NOW pointing at is NOT the Garden of Eden tale, but the much later creation myth found in Genesis 1. These are two entirely different stories, from entirely different periods and cultures.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

can beasts communicate? Ask the dolphin, whale, wolf, lion packs. What are the bird and whale songs? What are the grunts of walruses?Just because we can't understand them does not mean that they cannot talk or communicate.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

It's not that vague. Both trees are described as being "in the midst of the garden," but ONLY the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is explicitly forbidden.This clearly implies that the tree of life was available to them. How could this be in doubt?If you follow the logic of this, when God later disallows it to them, it has to be because of what their disobedience had done -- there is no other conclusion. The rest is conjecture but intelligent conjecture, to say that it was because they were now changed into sinners that God forbade the tree of life to them at that point, whereas while they were obedient there was no danger in their eating from it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How do you know that?

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

Archer, I personally would love to see a discussion of the genetics of sin. However, in good conscience whereas the concept of original sin and the Fall are appropriate here in the context of Gen 1-3, a quasi-scientific discussion of the genetics involved would "passeth beyond the topic". If you can get a new topic started, I'd love to participate. This is not the place, however.As usual, any comments on this message should be taken to the appropriate thread below.Also Sprach Da Judge

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

In Message 228 jar said: to which robin now replies: Robin, those are two totally unrelated statements. No one questions that the story says GOD told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and that they were supposed to obey. The point is that until they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and knew right from wrong, good from evil, they simply did not have the tools needed to obey. They were like little children, innocent and unprepared to deal with the challenge that faced them.I have been over this most recently in Message 226. I will duplicate that message below for you or the audience.******************************************************* That has been covered in this thread several times. In Message 37 I said: In Message 80 I said: In Message 207 I said: Until they had the ability to know right from wrong they simply had no way of judging. They were innocent. It would be like telling a one year old that if she puts the rubber ducky in her mouth she will surely die. It might even have some influence for a moment, until something else comes up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In Message 228 jar said in reference to Genesis 1 and the Garden of Eden story found in Genesis 2&3: to which robin responds:

quote:

---

How do you know that?

---

I touched on your question beginning back in Message 54. There are several indicators, things such as the terms used in the different sections which are examined and discussed in the "Documentary Hypothesis". But for me, the most important reasons to believe that they are from different peoples, different eras is the fact that the two tales are mutually exclusive having different orders of creation as well as different methodologies, and the most important single factor for me, the entirely different viewpoint and descriptions of GOD as shown in the two tales.As I pointed out in Message 60: Edited by jar, : edited to fix subtitle

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

for trying to avoid the responsilbity for their own actions.Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake.

What is omitted here is concluding the opposite to be the case too - until they knew right from wrong they had not the tools to disobey either. If that is indeed a way to look at it at allSo the solution must lie elsewhere. Try this one.God had given Adam dominion over the animals etc. That suggests things like rule over, have command over, be Lord over, steer, control, guide, etc. And looking at that which he had been given dominion over Adam could draw understanding about the order of things and what the nature and purpose of dominion was. He would have seen himself as 'other' and 'above' the animals and the rest of creation. (I suppose Adam meeting Eve for the first time would have been a shock to both of them - the first sight of someone of same order as themselves.)From this he would have had a natural understanding of Gods dominion over him - recognising God as being above him in the same way that he was above the animals. He knew his position and when the commandment was given he would have naturally seen it from the viewpoint of a being under dominion: in his case, God expressing his rightful guidance, control and direction over him. He had no reason to think otherwise and the sense of obedience/disobedience as Jar introduces it, is unnecessary at this point. Adam would just have followed the natural order of things. The same goes for Eve.At this stage Adam was acting under God as an animal would have acted under Adam. Not as a fully free-willed individual but as a subject created in a position of being under dominion. Any will he expressed was contained within boundaries. God set boundaries. Consider Adam under dominion as one would a pack animal under Adams dominion and in the act of drawing the plough. The animal is free to swish his tail to flick a fly from his ear because that does not fall outside the boundaries of his being under dominion - it doesn't interfere with his being directed in his drawing of the plough.The temptation brought a situation to Adam which provided a means of expressing full-fledged will for the first time. If he chose for God in the face of genuine open choice then his being under dominion would take on a different order. He would chose to subject himself to dominion as opposed to being created into that position. There is an enormous difference. It is at this point that Adam would be fully and most completely human - in the sense that God intended.Providing this choice to Adam was Gods purpose. And the temptation was the means by which he enabled it. He didn't create the evil that made the choice possible - but he used available evil to carry out his plan.So knowledge of right and wrong was not required in order to obey/disobey. Choice was. More properly it was chosing to remain under dominion because God was patently above him and he had experience of the 'good' functioning of that. Or chose to escape from under Gods dominion and order of things. Adam didn't have to know the full consequences of 'surely die' or 'escape from under dominion'. He knew enough. He would have known that the order under which he has hiterto lived would cease to exist. And that something else must take its place. He could suppose from his own experience of having dominion what it would mean were dominion broken. What it would be like to have a pack animal who always responded to his guidance suddenly not responding anymore. The tasks he set it would no longer be possible and the fruit born of these tasks being accomplished would no longer be available (to either himself or the animal). He had picture sufficient to inform his choice. And temptation sufficient to provide a choice.People often say that God didn't let Adam know the full consequences of 'surely die' and that if he had, Adam would have chosen otherwise. That is stacking the deck - not providing free will. Any increase in Adams level of understanding of consequence, over and above what he had, would have had to be countered by increased temptation in order to still provide a genuine choice.The issue of obey/disobey, knowing good and evil all occur at the moment of choice. The choice has to be taken in order for any of those conditions to occur. In other words: if he chose to remain where he was he would simultaneously be in the position of having obeyed God. And vice versa. There is no need for him to consider obedience/disobedience (as concepts) prior to/during the choice being made. The point of choice being exercised is when all these things occur. So he doesn't need to be equipped in the sense that Jar means. He was equipped as I suggest he was - sufficient for the task.And it is the same today curiously enough. All becoming a Christian involves is a person freely accepting the dominion that God has over them. And God is the one who brings a person back from under the complete influence of sin in order that they, like (but not same as)Adam get to chose whether or no. Our nature to sin countered by God call on us.Now that's a fit!Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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.

You are free to believe anything you want. However, I have outlined in Message 235 why I believe as I do.I provided links to others that also understand that it is separate stories and why they think that. I explained the primary reason I consider them different stories.You are free to disagree and I suggest you present your best case for your position and the readers can then make their decisions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you as thick as a brick?Jar agrees with you that Adam and Eve were punished for eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He's been saying this over and over and over again.Where he disagrees with you concerns whether banishment from Eden was part of the punishment. He believes they were banished in order to prevent their eating of the Tree of Life. You believe they were banished as part of the punishment.Jar has explained all this and quoted chapter and verse.I have explained all this and quoted chapter and verse.Meanwhile, you keep repeating, "Jar doesn't think Adam and Eve were punished," which is dead wrong. I have this unusual (for me) impulse to start typing in capital letters to you. What kind of obtuseness is required when Jar's own words are incapable of convincing you that he believes Adam and Eve were punished from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Sheesh!--Percy