Genesis 2

[dgirl1986]

Now we come into the second instalment in this series. By the way, if you were wondering why I called it Bible Facepalm...it is because I cannot believe I am reading the bible lol.

I posted the first instalment which people suggested I consider Jewish and Christian commentary before responding I think this was a fair suggestion. So I will be doing that from now on.

Genesis 2
Adam and Eve
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NIV

My Thoughts
This chapter kind of repeats chapter 1 in more detail, more so with the creation of Adam and Eve. I read through both the Jewish and Christian commentaries which was interesting. I will provide links for these at the bottom of this post. So here are my thoughts based on all of this...

There isn’t really a lot that can be said about this chapter other than a few questions that were raised in my mind such as;
- “Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”
- “Didn’t god lie about what would happen if they ate from the forbidden tree? Or was it that he didn’t know what would happen? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this go against the understanding of what god is”
- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”
- “They felt no shame? Does that indicate that they should have felt shame or was it a setup for when they eat the fruit?”

It was interesting to note that it was interpreted that the two flesh becoming one was not speaking of the physical act but more a reference to them both coming together in the form of a child.



http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=1&c=2

 

[dgirl1986]

I also found the Jewish Commentary to be easier to follow than the christian one.

 

[greentwiga]

If it repeats 1 in more detail then there are conflicts such as plants coming after humans. If Gen 2 is an event near the Tigris and Euphrates, but is separate from 1, then chap 1 can be in Africa

 

[dgirl1986]

If it repeats 1 in more detail then there are conflicts such as plants coming after humans. If Gen 2 is an event near the Tigris and Euphrates, but is separate from 1, then chap 1 can be in Africa

Yeah I noticed that as well but forgot to include it in my response.

 

[roger1440]

Dgirl1986, how old are you and do you go to any church? If so, what one?

 

[Thana]

My Thoughts
This chapter kind of repeats chapter 1 in more detail, more so with the creation of Adam and Eve. I read through both the Jewish and Christian commentaries which was interesting. I will provide links for these at the bottom of this post. So here are my thoughts based on all of this...

There isn’t really a lot that can be said about this chapter other than a few questions that were raised in my mind such as;
- “Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”
- “Didn’t god lie about what would happen if they ate from the forbidden tree? Or was it that he didn’t know what would happen? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this go against the understanding of what god is”
- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”
- “They felt no shame? Does that indicate that they should have felt shame or was it a setup for when they eat the fruit?”

The felt no shame because they were perfect, Spiritual beings. And then they tasted of the tree and became mortal. Mortality comes with some fun stuff, Like shame.

To be honest, I have no idea why women are seen as the lower gender. I suppose it came from their lack of physical strength, Since this prejudice came from a time when might was right.

He knew what would happen, But that isn't the point. The point was, It was the only thing God said not to do, And they went ahead and did it.

He put the tree there, I think, To give them choice. So that they could choose to love God, To obey him.

 

[dgirl1986]

Dgirl1986, how old are you and do you go to any church? If so, what one?

I am 27
I was a christian for 11 years. Attended an evangelical church that later became church of christ

 

[roger1440]

I am 27
I was a christian for 11 years. Attended an evangelical church that later became church of christ

The reason why I am asking is because different churches interpret The Book of Genesis differently. Some churches take a more literal interpretation. Others take a symbolic approach. Then there are the ones that fall in the middle. I believe Genesis is probably more symbolic than literal. Note that I use the word “probably”. From the surface the Bible can be interpreted literal. Beneath that there is a current of allegory that flows throughout its entirety. At least I think so, LOL. If you don’t already have one, I would suggest get yourself a good study Bible. Then sometime down the road get another study Bible but a different translation. Sometimes it’s a good idea to get a second opinion.

 

[roger1440]

- “Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”

The tree may represent free will. We are always at the cross roads in life. We always have a choice. We can pursue God’s will or our own will. The fruit of the tree may represent temptation. Forbidden fruit may be the sweetest but it may not be the best for us.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)
​

 

[gnostic]

This chapter kind of repeats chapter 1 in more detail, more so with the creation of Adam and Eve.

I view Genesis 1 creation and Genesis 2 creation as two separate creation stories.

In Genesis 1, animals were created before humans, but in Genesis 2, the order is reverse, Adam first, then animals, followed by Eve.

 

[Sleeppy]

Nakedness, in my mind, wouldn't have been perceived/named without 1) sexual awareness and 2) others with similar sexual awareness..

Obviously, mental shame produced/accompanied their need for clothing, as opposed to some other physical need.

 

[greentwiga]

I view Genesis 1 creation and Genesis 2 creation as two separate creation stories.

In Genesis 1, animals were created before humans, but in Genesis 2, the order is reverse, Adam first, then animals, followed by Eve.

A standard interpretation is to make them two discussion of the same thing, but then you have problems. Just one is what you pointed out, the reverse order. Another is the conflict with science. Gen 2 says mankind originated in Mesopotamia, but Science says east or south Africa.

I struggled with or ignored the problems so I could remain a Christian. Finally I tackled them in depth. The two chapters are two completely different events. Chap 2 is a highly accurate record of the place and time Agriculture was invented. The plants of the field that came after man is the ancient way of saying domestic plants. Scientists even say that domestic plants can't exist without man to cultivate them.

Even the talking serpent was real, in a sense. It is a record of a religious battle. Our closest example is the Oracle at Delphi. It also has the order of inventions right, as well as domestication of animals. Secular people I've talked to struggle with the thought of them preserving the story accurately, verbally, for thousands of years. Even the tree in the center of the garden with fruit you can't eat accurately uses the analogy of fig orchards. Yes, the spiritual teachings are there just as we teach, but it is amazingly accurate.

 

[Pegg]

There isn’t really a lot that can be said about this chapter other than a few questions that were raised in my mind such as;
- “Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”

the tree was an expression of his sovereignty. As the creator and owner of the garden, he had the right to make laws and they were subject to his laws.

And not only that, but that one law gave them 'freewill'

If God did not give them any laws at all, then they could never have disobeyed him, nor could they ever 'choose' to disobey him...that would be a lack of freewill. But God wanted them to have the ability to choose and the law about the tree is what gave them that ability.

- “Didn’t god lie about what would happen if they ate from the forbidden tree? Or was it that he didn’t know what would happen? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this go against the understanding of what god is”

God told them that they would die if they ate from the tree. Are they still alive? No. They did die, so God did not lie to them.

He knew they would die because they were only alive due to the life he put into them. Without him, their lifesource, they would slowly die. And disobedience caused them to leave his protective care.

He is not obligated to keep giving life to people who reject his sovereignty, is he?

- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”

women are just as valuable as the man himself. Being created from the rib of the man meant that she was his equal because she was from his flesh.

- “They felt no shame? Does that indicate that they should have felt shame or was it a setup for when they eat the fruit?”

it indicates that while under Gods protective guidance and governance, nudity was not a shameful thing. The man and woman were perfect at that time and they had no illfeelings toward their bodies.

It was interesting to note that it was interpreted that the two flesh becoming one was not speaking of the physical act but more a reference to them both coming together in the form of a child.

i dont know where the idea of a child comes into the story. The 'two become one' occured after the woman was brought to the man and they became, what we would call, a married couple.

a man and woman are a perfect match...they are exact opposites and they compliment each other. When they marry, they 'become one' in the sense of unity toward each other. They are no longer two individuals living separate lives but are one united pair as if they are one 'body'.

 

[captainbryce]

“Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”

To initiate the "test of faith" that he knew they'd fail, but that had to be accomplished in order to teach mankind (and the angels) the lessons that they needed to learn if there were to be beings of "free will".

- “Didn’t god lie about what would happen if they ate from the forbidden tree? Or was it that he didn’t know what would happen? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this go against the understanding of what god is”

He didn't lie. He warned them that if they ate of the tree of knowledge, they would die. Neither Adam nor Eve are still alive today. Henceforth, God did not lie.

- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”

Only by certain individuals who choose to twist the meaning of the scripture to suit their own sexist agenda's. Although Adam came first, and Eve was created from him, the scripture goes on to say that God's intention is for them to be united as one, and become as one flesh. This can easily be interpreted to mean that they are spiritually EQUAL!

- “They felt no shame? Does that indicate that they should have felt shame or was it a setup for when they eat the fruit?”

It's a setup for when they eat the fruit. There was no reason for them to feel shame unless they A) knew that they were naked, and B) felt that being naked was shameful. Only someone who had a sinful nature (a perverted mind) would come to that realization. Once they ate of the tree, and committed the first sin, they had gone from being "perfect beings" to having a sinful nature. Their eyes were opened!

It was interesting to note that it was interpreted that the two flesh becoming one was not speaking of the physical act but more a reference to them both coming together in the form of a child.

I believe that the "union" is symbolic and can refer to MANY different things, including the physical act, their spiritual equality, establishing a family, being of like mind, etc. It can mean many different things!

 

[bobhikes]

Now we come into the second instalment in this series. By the way, if you were wondering why I called it Bible Facepalm...it is because I cannot believe I am reading the bible lol.

I posted the first instalment which people suggested I consider Jewish and Christian commentary before responding I think this was a fair suggestion. So I will be doing that from now on.

Genesis 2
Adam and Eve
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NIV
;
- “Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?”
- “Didn’t god lie about what would happen if they ate from the forbidden tree? Or was it that he didn’t know what would happen? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this go against the understanding of what god is”
- “Are women seen as the lower gender because they were not created from dust/dirt but instead the bone of a man?”
- “They felt no shame? Does that indicate that they should have felt shame or was it a setup for when they eat the fruit?”

It was interesting to note that it was interpreted that the two flesh becoming one was not speaking of the physical act but more a reference to them both coming together in the form of a child.



http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=1&c=2

I have been reviewing this section as well

I believe choice had to be an option with God I am not sure why yet. Humans had to have the choice to be bad. That what the snake is God said not to do it. The snake had to prevent the alternate option.

I don't think he lied about Death it is just not imediate.

I believe God thinks of Man and Woman as One.

How I see it
They should have felt shame for the crime they committed not being naked
Instead of Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the snake they should of fessed up and been remorseful.

 

[gnostic]

He didn't lie. He warned them that if they ate of the tree of knowledge, they would die. Neither Adam nor Eve are still alive today. Henceforth, God did not lie.

First of all, Genesis 2:17 goes:

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

This clearly state they would die on that day when they eat the fruit. Nothing in Genesis 2:15-17 say that they would die years later, which in Adam's case, 930 years later.

There is a huge difference between dying hundreds of years later and dying the instance they eat the fruit.

So in essence, god did lie...or alternatively, god changed his mind in making them die immediately, upon eating the fruit.

Second, reading your post, it would seem to indicate they were immortal before they ate the forbidden the fruit.

That's not the case, and it is common mistake that Christians make.

Even if they didn't eat the forbidden fruit, they still wouldn't have live forever, and nothing to indicate they were immortals. Adam and Eve were always mortals.

They would have only lived forever if they ate the fruit from the Tree of Life, but they didn't do so in Genesis 2 & 3. So they were created, by default, as mortals. Only the fruit from the Tree of Life would allow to live forever. And god drove them out of Eden, and barred them from eating from the Tree of Life.

 

[roger1440]

First of all, Genesis 2:17 goes:


This clearly state they would die on that day when they eat the fruit. Nothing in Genesis 2:15-17 say that they would die years later, which in Adam's case, 930 years later.

There is a huge difference between dying hundreds of years later and dying the instance they eat the fruit.

So in essence, god did lie...or alternatively, god changed his mind in making them die immediately, upon eating the fruit.

Second, reading your post, it would seem to indicate they were immortal before they ate the forbidden the fruit.

That's not the case, and it is common mistake that Christians make.

Even if they didn't eat the forbidden fruit, they still wouldn't have live forever, and nothing to indicate they were immortals. Adam and Eve were always mortals.

They would have only lived forever if they ate the fruit from the Tree of Life, but they didn't do so in Genesis 2 & 3. So they were created, by default, as mortals. Only the fruit from the Tree of Life would allow to live forever. And god drove them out of Eden, and barred them from eating from the Tree of Life.

Hmm, OK, God lied. What would have been his motive? Is God the eternal prankster? Also, when God made man he must have had extra parts lying around. Men have nipples for no useful purpose. I guess he has a sense of humor too.

 

[gnostic]

Hmm, OK, God lied. What would have been his motive?

You are forgetting that God didn't write the Genesis.

Each and every books in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament or Tanakh) was by someone, trying to explain their relationship with their god. Some were good and tried to set example for others to followers, while others turn away from God.

If I was to compare the 3 major scriptures together (the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian NT Bible and the Muslim or Islamic Qur'an), I would have to say the Jewish authors or scribes were more honest depicting their own people in the scriptural narratives. They were not afraid to show that humans in general, including Israelites have both positives and negatives characteristics, that they were flawed.

The depictions of Jesus and Muhammad in their respective scriptures, have been whitewashed, and turned into some sort of superhumans, who can do no wrong. To me this is abnormal, for who can truly meet with their standards.

According to Islam, prophets and messengers are perfect, cannot sin. Although other religions, don't see David and Solomon as prophets, Muslims do. But in the episode of Bathsheba, David sinned, not only because of sleeping Bathsheba during her husband's absence, but the king arranged it so that her husband would be killed in action. That's not the person who is perfect.

But getting back to your question about God - can he lie?

I can see in some areas, where god have the ability to create, love and forgive in the Hebrew scriptures, but I also can see a god who could become angry, jealous (Exodus 20:5, "for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God"), and can destroy a person, a group of people, a tribe, nation or even the entire the world.

God is not seen in a good light at all, in the Book of Job, where he pettily wager with Satan in testing Job's devotion to him, and then ignoring Job's question with bragging.

If what any of scriptures write about god is true, then yes, you betcha he can lie.

I am not saying that God is completely evil. No, I am saying that God embodied both good and evil.

Is God the eternal prankster?

I know that Christians view God as good and Satan evil, but I am also Jews see Satan as not the Devil but God's personal agent of testing people's faith.

I don't know about "eternal" prankster, but he is certainly is a "prankster". (Words, like "eternal" and "perfect" have no meaning to me. They are abstract constructs.)

I have already listed the Book of Job. Although Satan was the one gave Job's disease, and lose his children and wealth, Satan was working under God's direction the whole time, so fundamentally God was responsible for all the good and bad that happened to Job. He gave Job the wealth (and children), took them away from him, and then gave him new children and wealth.

To me, that bear all the hallmark of a prankster.

If you are not satisfied with that, then how about the sacrifice of Isaac. First he tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, then later retracted the order, when he saw that Abraham was willing to make such sacrifice. This testing a person's faith or devotion showed characteristic of prankster.

By ordering Isaac's sacrifice, and then retract it, doesn't that show the order was actually a "lie"?

Tell me, roger. Do you really know much about prankster-deity?

A prankster does not necessarily mean the god is evil. Evil is perhaps too strong a word to associate with the prankster.

A prankster is mischievous, not evil. Although you might see a prank to be evil, because you would normally see prank as trickery. But what if the prank is use to test another person?

Are all trickery and lies evil? Does God see all trickery and lies to be evil or sin?

1. Jacob deceived his father to gain Esau's blessing.
2. Solomon used trickery to determine which two women were the mother of a child they were disputing over.

And in neither of the two examples above, showed that God was angry with either Jacob or Solomon. In fact, the author of 1 Kings view Solomon's deception as wisdom.

In the Norse myth, the prankster is Loki. Through his pranks, he got the gods, giants, dwarves and humans into trouble, but at the same time, Loki would also get them out of trouble too...well, sometimes.

In the beginning, Loki is not seen as evil god, until you reach the story about Baldur's death and Ragnarok. I believed that by this stage in Norse myths, were influenced by the Book of Revelation, and its Armageddon, which required one of the Norse gods to play the part of the Devil.

 

[captainbryce]

This clearly state they would die on that day when they eat the fruit. Nothing in Genesis 2:15-17 say that they would die years later, which in Adam's case, 930 years later.

There is a huge difference between dying hundreds of years later and dying the instance they eat the fruit.

First define the word "day".

So in essence, god did lie...or alternatively, god changed his mind in making them die immediately, upon eating the fruit.

Negative. He did neither. Everything he said would happen HAPPENED!

Second, reading your post, it would seem to indicate they were immortal before they ate the forbidden the fruit.

Not necessarily. That is merely YOUR interpretation, not mine. If you'd like me to share with you my interpretation I'd be happy to. But in light of the fact that many Jews here feel they have the monopoly on biblical interpretation, and are quick to complain whenever a Christian attempts to offer their views on the Old Testament, I hesitate to volunteer such views now unless asked.

That's not the case, and it is common mistake that Christians make.

A common mistake that non-Christians make is generalizing what Christians supposedly believe and/or know. Your OPINION is noted, but it is no more or less valid than mine.

Even if they didn't eat the forbidden fruit, they still wouldn't have live forever, and nothing to indicate they were immortals. Adam and Eve were always mortals.

I never said that they weren't. You are attacking a strawman here!

They would have only lived forever if they ate the fruit from the Tree of Life, but they didn't do so in Genesis 2 & 3. So they were created, by default, as mortals. Only the fruit from the Tree of Life would allow to live forever. And god drove them out of Eden, and barred them from eating from the Tree of Life.

I'm aware of these facts. I don't see why you are bringing this up.

 

[captainbryce]

Hmm, OK, God lied. What would have been his motive? Is God the eternal prankster? Also, when God made man he must have had extra parts lying around. Men have nipples for no useful purpose. I guess he has a sense of humor too.

God didn't lie because "day" also means "age"! Only by insisting that ONE specific definition of the word day be applied to this passage can one make God's words into a lie. A common mistake among atheists!