The first 3 chapters of Genesis

it's implicit, to a degree. it's the nature that we all somehow changed fundamentally (in ways other than the explicit punishments described) or that we are all born with sin on our heads that is totally without textual merit.

---

I don't think there's any point in trying to convince a professed Christian that there was a fall. I guess Christianity must be a much bigger tent than I thought. Even we Unitarians don't go as far as this - while we're very liberal in our Biblical interpretations, that Genesis describes a fall is beyond doubt for us.I have no objection to anyone taking whatever interpretation they prefer of the Bible (as long as they keep it out of science classrooms), and I use the labels people prefer to use for themselves, so if you want to call yourself a Christian then I will too, but when it comes to grouping people by belief within my own mind you won't be among most others who call themselves Christians. Me neither, but I'm not a Christian. Like I said, it doesn't seem worthwhile to argue this with a Christian, but looking at this from the outside and seeing you say this for the first time (for me) I now understand why other Christians find your professed Christianity hard to fathom.My understanding of the Christian interpretation of Genesis is that there was a fall brought on by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and the New Testament interpretation is that that sin propagates through all generations to all men from whose consequences they cannot be saved without accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. My further understanding is that this belief is foundational to Christianity, but maybe I'm wrong about that. I do find the possibility that some sects of Christianity are further "out there" than Unitarianism a bit mind-boggling. While your Genesis interpretation is not the literal interpretation of Creationists, it seems just as restrictive because it contains little flexibility. While Genesis doesn't recount God saying he wished Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of life, you take this as indicating he didn't mind them eating of this tree. Were this really true then his later concern would make no sense.A reasonable flexibility would allow that like most stories, the recounting is neither perfect nor all-inclusive of all events. Again, this is a very restrictive interpretation. People telling stories don't generally attempt the level of precision you're assuming this story has. Or are you just trying to force Creationists to be as literal in interpreting some passages as they are about others? True. So what. You require that every little detail be spelled out? You seem as insistent and literal in your own inflexible interpretations as the Creationists are in theirs.The story in Genesis likely went through many retellings and reformulations before finally being written down in imperfect form. I can't see how there could ever be any "correct" interpretation, and my own interpretation is just one among many, but I personally don't see much to recommend either yours or the Creationist's.--Percy

Sure thing. I'm open to what you have to say. At the risk of sounding close minded before you start however I would ask that you keep your first post short so as to see whether your line of reasoning gels at all with mine. You say for example: You are presumably using some model of what it is that constitutes a Christian in supposing that it is indeed fellow Christians I am divided from. I use another model to suppose that there is no division - merely because that model excludes the possibility of that person being a Christian.It could be that what you have to say stems from sheer reasonableness which is not dependant in its foundation on such personal models. It could be otherwise in that you are going to present argument according to a model of things you yourself find reasonable.The more you err towards the former and less the latter the more there may be to profit from it for all.Cheers...

quote:

---

The facts of the story include:

1. Women have pain in childbirth.
2. People work hard for a living.
3. People don't like snakes.

---

You forgot a few things.Why we wear clothes and why there are thistles and thornbushes in the fields. The difficulties of agriculture.Oddly enough, clearing ground is what gives thistles a foothold. They tend to flourish in fallow lands and ruins.While we aren't too keen on thistles and thornbushes they are necessary for animals, which keep them in check.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I'm wondering whether there is a confusion here between the uncontroversial idea that Genesis describes a fall, and the rather more controversial doctrine of original sin.Here is a quote from the wiki article on original sin, suggesting that there are many churches, some of them quite conservative, that do not accept the doctrine. It is my impression that jar's objection is to the doctrine, which appears to have originated with Augustine, and was later expanded by Calvin.

My problem is not so much with the idea of a fall if it describes a change, but with "THE FALL" as you describe above, with the concept of what is described in Genesis leading to some Orgiginal Sin that is then passed down and has the consequence of everyone being damned unless they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And I base that on what is said in Genesis and the rest of the Bible as well as external observation of the world we live in and on critical examination of just what such a theology says about God. But Genesis specifically says that Adam can eat from ANY tree in the garden except the ONE tree, the Tree of Knowledge.From Genesis 2 Note verse 16:

quote:

---

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

---

Any Tree.GOD then goes on in the next verse to exempt one tree, the Tree of Knowledge. GOD specifically says that is the one tree that Adam is not allowed to eat from.

quote:

---

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

---

I do not make the assumption that GOD would not mind Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Life, that is what the story says. It says "You can eat the fruit of any tree except one specific tree."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, it's a bad habit introduced by the act of reading.To read it to interpret. To interpret is come to an understanding.You use an English translation of Genesis. Why English? Because that is a language you understand.To read a book you need such a language. You need words that form images in your head: light, evening, morning, day, sky, land, sea.As soon as you begin to form images in your head you are interpreting. You are coming to an understanding.If your goal were indeed to look simply at what the text literally SAYS, with no danger of interpretation or understanding coming into play, you would not use English. You would use the original Hebrew--provided you don't understand Hebrew.Illiteracy is an excellent way to view a text in utter purity of thought. No pictures will come into your head. You will see what the text actually says, with no danger of interpretation or understanding.The act of interpreting and understanding is necessary when we read anything. We do it when we use language in any way at all.Readers who talk of interpretation, undertanding, context and intent are not being cheeky. They are just acknowledging the reality of their own role in the process. It is part of reading a text in a conscientious manner.Someone has sold you a bill of goods that the people in your sectarian corner of the universe enjoy some sort of exemption from this responsibility. They talk as if they can read without interpreting. As if such a thing were possible.Interpretation is intrinsic to the act of reading. No reader is exempt.You would do well to acknowledge your own role in the process as a reader. Denying your own interpretive action does not make it go away.The day you can do this is the day your relationship with the text, and with other conscientious interpreters of that text, will take a more productive turn.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You can skip the pedantic lecture about what interpreting means. I was responding to a specific assertion by NWR as I recall which introduced extraneous material to the text. Nobody's disputing that to read is to interpret, but what is going on here is playing fast and loose with what is actually written and refusing just to read the plain words.There seems to be something approaching a fear of the plain words here, as if they might say exactly what everybody doesn't want them to say. Amusing actually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it does. So what. How much precision and exactness are you assuming was achieved in passing down and recording this story? A great deal, it seems, as much as the creationists.The opposing inflexible interpretations of you on the one hand and creationists on the other is one of the best arguments I've seen that it really isn't appropriate to approach Biblical exegesis in this way.--Percy

I'm not at all sure I understand how you can get that? I don't presume there is any precision and exactness, it is a fable. But I also do not assume that what IS there is not really there.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's what I propose to do.I want to show you a universal human phenomenon. I want to show you a few things about how it works.Individuals differ in how much personal interest they take in this phenomenon as subject matter. Some like to think about it and talk about it; some don't. Comprehension of it improves with practice and atrophies with disuse. But these individual differences in temperament do not affect the universal seriousness of the phenomenon.A good analogy would be physical health. Some people are very conscious of having a body and maintaining it. They enjoy working out, talking about nutrition and exercise, and learning more about the human body. Others take their bodies largely for granted. They prefer to focus their attention on other matters and pay attention to their health only when they have to.But, regardless of whether everyone thinks about it or likes to, everyone has physical health. Their state of health affects them every moment. And, at the core of it, everyone wants a sound, reliably functioning body. No one likes to lose it. It matters.So if we go ahead I ask that you keep this distinction in mind: the difference between individual temperaments on the one hand and the essential human value of a thing on the other. Can you do this?.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

And what are you going on about in this pedantic patronizing way?Please show how this is on topic or perhaps you and iano need to start another thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've a feeling something is going to clash with the universal depravity of unregenerate vs the state of regenerate man somewhere in the not too distant future. But I'll give it a shot if you are still willing.

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with this thread, iano. Would you please start another for the purpose?Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

Well, you've been going round and round about your Christian views with various people for some time. There's no reason for me to expect that anything I happen to say will get the point across. But your rejection of fall from grace and original sin is not all consistent with my view of mainstream Christianity.I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but in my view you definitely do not believe the same as mainstream Christianity. I don't blame people for becoming frustrated when you say things like, in effect, "I'm a Christian, and there's no such thing as fall from grace or original sin."I can see how talking about Christianity with you can be like examining Christianity through fun-house mirrors. It should be fun, but instead of looking at the funny image in the mirror and saying, "Look at that funny distorted view," you're saying, "What's funny or distorted about it." It doesn't even seem to give you pause. If you don't see it then you don't see it, and I guess all anyone can do is just walk away shaking their heads.--Percy