Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The first 3 chapters of Genesis
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 307 (349474)
09-15-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
09-15-2006 8:20 PM


You're the one who's injecting what isn't there: a fictitious world in which there is child-free childbirth and work-free gardening.
No, you are applying realism.
It's like saying there is no such thing as ghosts in regard to Hamlet.
But we are inquiring about the facts of the story.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 09-15-2006 8:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 09-15-2006 8:30 PM robinrohan has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 77 of 307 (349476)
09-15-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 8:25 PM


robinrohan writes:
... you are applyimg realism.
No I'm not. I'm not saying there is no child-free childbirth or work-free gardening. I'm saying they're not in the story. If you think they are, cite chapter and verse instead of just repeating, "It's obvious."

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 8:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 8:35 PM ringo has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 307 (349479)
09-15-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
09-15-2006 8:30 PM


I'm not saying there is no child-free childbirth or work-free gardening. I'm saying they're not in the story. If you think they are, cite chapter and verse instead of just repeating, "It's obvious."
You must be the biggest damned fool I ever met in my life. So God said, everything is like it was before? No changes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 09-15-2006 8:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 09-15-2006 8:36 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 10:42 PM robinrohan has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 307 (349480)
09-15-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 8:35 PM


Chapter and verse?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 8:35 PM robinrohan has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 307 (349481)
09-15-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Clark
09-15-2006 7:44 PM


I agree with Robin that God punished Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:16-19.
I don't think anyone has ever disagreed that that is what those verses say. The question then moves beyond that simple point.
The topic here is The first 3 chapters of Genesis. That seems to go beyond a few verses in that last of the three chapters.
The thing that I and others have discussed is whether there was a Fall or some Original Sin. IMHO the reading of Genesis, particularly the first three chapters, does not support the concept of either a Fall or Original Sin.
The story goes that Adam and Eve eat some fruit that lets them know the difference between Good and Evil, even though God had told them not to eat from that Tree. God then punishes them for that act.
The key point is that tale if taken at face value makes God look pretty bad. Until Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they would have no way of knowing they should obey God as opposed to anyone else. They were like infants, they had no sense of morality or what the threat of death meant. They were completely innocent and so to punish them for disobeying when they just did not have the capability to know right from wrong would be unjust.
The redactors of the Bible were not stupid, they could see the problems just as they saw the inconsistencies between the creation myth in Genesis 1 and that in Genesis 2. So why include it?
IMHO they saw that the story was more important than the inconsistencies.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Clark, posted 09-15-2006 7:44 PM Clark has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 81 of 307 (349489)
09-15-2006 8:59 PM


oh to be 8 years old again and believe that every story in the Bible is true.
Ah how I yearn for those innocent days.
Brian.

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 307 (349514)
09-15-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 8:35 PM


It's pathetic, Robin. They refuse to simply read the story and discuss what it actually says.
You could always flunk students of yours who couldn't follow your simple assignment. That might not be any great satisfaction since they're just poor victims of modern education, but it would probably be a great pleasure to flunk these know-it-alls here if only you could.
And they don't even have a sense of humor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 8:35 PM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 83 of 307 (349525)
09-15-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 3:12 PM


I'm interested in interpretation generally ...
I'll assume you are mainly concerned with the Adam and Eve story (rather than the separate creation story of Genesis 1).
My take is that this an early form of a "Just So" story. It was intended to explain the human condition in general. But its main emphasis was on human consciousness and what distinguishes us from other animals. Thus the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the central theme.
The tree of life is merely a side issue, to fill out the plot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 3:12 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:55 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 307 (349529)
09-15-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by nwr
09-15-2006 11:30 PM


Robin is interested in discussing what the story SAYS, not what you think it means or why it was written. Perhaps his OP was not clear enough, but that's been the gist of the discussion since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 09-15-2006 11:30 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nwr, posted 09-16-2006 12:13 AM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 85 of 307 (349532)
09-16-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-15-2006 11:55 PM


Robin is interested in discussing what the story SAYS, not what you think it means or why it was written.
You cannot separate what it says from why it was written. The latter provides the context for understanding the former.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 12:39 AM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 307 (349534)
09-16-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nwr
09-16-2006 12:13 AM


You cannot separate what it says from why it was written. The latter provides the context for understanding the former.
"Understanding" it is not the point. Simply grasping what it actually SAYS in so many words is the point.
This is because "understanding" it does nothing but introduce fanciful speculations that have nothing to do with the text itself.
Start with what the text actually SAYS. There is so much "understanding" here the text might as well not exist.
This is apparently a bad habit introduced by modern text criticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nwr, posted 09-16-2006 12:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 09-16-2006 1:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 97 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-16-2006 10:42 AM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 87 of 307 (349538)
09-16-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-16-2006 12:39 AM


"Understanding" it is not the point. Simply grasping what it actually SAYS in so many words is the point.
Understanding is grasping what it says.
Start with what the text actually SAYS.
The OP does ask about interpretation.
Text doesn't actually say anything. Rather, it conveys a message from the author. Thus one must consider the intent of the author. In this case it is particularly difficult, because we would need to consider the intent of the original author when the story was part of an oral tradition, the intent of those who embellished the story over the years while it existed only in the oral tradition, the intent of the writer who committed it to written text, and the intent of the translators.
This is apparently a bad habit introduced by modern text criticism.
If "modern text criticism" is an allusion to deconstructionism, then I have no part in that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 12:39 AM Faith has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 88 of 307 (349552)
09-16-2006 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by iano
09-15-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Calling Archer
You rang?
iano:
Look what you've done! I cannot agree with Robin for fear of incurring your wrath - despite what Jar says reading like the manuals that used to come with Japanese equipment 20 years ago.
You seem to be asking me to help you find common ground. Are you serious?
If you are, I can.
I don't promise you'll be singing 'Kum Ba Yah' around VBS campfires with Episcopalian orangutangs if that's not your cup of tea. But I can show you something worthwhile: another aspect of this subject, an important one, that you don't seem to have much experience with. If you give yourself time to reflect on it, it could put into healthier perspective some of the interpretive differences that loom so large in your mind right now that they divide you from your fellow Christians.
If you're in the market for anything like that.
You'd have to let me walk you through a few observations before we come around to one feature of the Genesis text. This would involve 2-3 fairly hefty posts for me. Admin has to be cool with me taking a momentary detour from the immediate subject for a moment before returning to it. The discussion should be of general interest, though.
There's nothing up my sleeve. Go with me on this and you don't have to worry about accepting gifts from Greeks. You will be able to voice agreement with everything I say if it strikes you as reasonable, yet still walk away with your creationism intact. Nothing lost.
I don't want to waste my time, though, or yours. If you're just here to repeat old patterns I'd sooner forego the typing. So let me know what you want to do.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 09-15-2006 7:40 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by iano, posted 09-16-2006 9:00 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 89 of 307 (349555)
09-16-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 3:12 PM


I don't remember Jar arguing against punishment. He argued that the idea of "original sin" is not made explcit in the text.
The section you present seems to back that up...
Jar's "just so" hypothesis works for me. Adam and Eve were punished and that's why the world is as it is.
However, I can see how the the "fall" concept would arise. One can argue that we were ALL punished because we live in the world that resulted from their disobediance. This idea, however, does not appear to have been made explicit in the text.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 3:12 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by arachnophilia, posted 09-16-2006 6:47 AM RickJB has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 90 of 307 (349557)
09-16-2006 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 3:12 PM


clarification
Jar and others in another thread claim that the traditional interpretation--that God punishes Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (we can shorten this to KGE) is incorrect.
god certain does punish adam and eve. you can argue about whether it's consequences of their actions or not, but it's essentially punishment.
the issue is whether god punishes us with some abstract sense of "original sin" from the moment of birth. that idea is largely unsupported by the text, especially the jewish segment of it. that god withdraws the tree of life from adam and eve -- and that this action affects the rest of, as do the other punishments -- is uncontested. of course their punishment affects us, their decendents. if it did not, there would be no point in telling the story. indeed, the things they are actually punished with (work, physical and emotional pain, patriarchal society, and death) do affect us.
They say that Adam and Eve are being sent away from Eden so that they won't eat from the Tree of Life, not because they did eat from the KGE,
from the section you didn't quote:
quote:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
seems pretty clear to me. god sends them away to keep them from eating from the tree of life. the other punishments {other than death} are irrelevant to whether or not man lives in the garden. {certainly, not eating from the tree of life is part of the punishment}
it also indicates that man is probably not immortal prior to this.
and this being sent away does not consititute punishment.
well, it's part of the "death" punishment. if adam can eat from the tree of life, he won't die.
Edited by arachnophilia, : added brackets


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 3:12 PM robinrohan 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