• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

why was the tree in the garden?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
MidnightBlue said:
Not at all.

So you think that the writers of Genesis were Gnostic?

I cannot begin to imagine how this is possible.:cover:
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is the kind of stuff that happens when we superimpose Christian theology of salvation onto material that is clearly written much earlier, presents a much different world view, a much different perspective of God (and humanity), and a much different view of what it means to be in relationship with God.

Because God had placed humanity "in the garden," it only stands to reason that everything pertaining to or concerning the human condition (such as knowledge of good and evil, and mortality) would also be located "in the garden." There would have been no logical reason for God to have placed human knowledge of good and evil outside the realm of humanity.

The creator of the metaphor of the "Tree of Life" had no concept of Jesus, or of the "Messiah." He only knew of "God" and "humanity." And he knew that humans, unlike God, were mortal. There was no concept that God would become mortal, thereby completing humanity and uniting us to God's self. There was no concept of the immortal soul. There was no concept that we would all "go to heaven" when we died, if we had remained obedient to God. There was only an attempt to answer the question of human mortality in the theological terms of the day. So, superimposing our current perspective of the human condition upon a more primitive perspective doesn't work.
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
MidnightBlue said:
To me, if somebody says, "If you eat that you'll die," it means you'll die pretty soon, as a result of eating it. It doesn't mean you'll die 900 years later.

Paul probably believed, along with many members of Abrahamic religions today, that humans were immortal before the Fall and were punished with mortality. Or maybe the death he spoke of was a spiritual death. But there's no hint of that in the Genesis text. Nor is there any mention of sin, for that matter. If mortality had been the inevitable consequence of disobedience, why would God have worried that they might take from the Tree of Life, and live forever?

All the later talk about immortality and mortality is added on by later religious development, and forms no part of the original myth. In the most straightforward reading of it, God lies and then punishes their disobedience with curses.
I always figure in that as each chapter goes along, new writers have to explain things from previous chapters and if they intend to stick with writing a Christian message (which is what they obviously want), they have to interpret what previously happened in a way that makes sense with what they know is happening right now and in a way that coincides with the message they want to write.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
sojourner said:
This is the kind of stuff that happens when we superimpose Christian theology of salvation onto material that is clearly written much earlier, presents a much different world view, a much different perspective of God (and humanity), and a much different view of what it means to be in relationship with God.

Because God had placed humanity "in the garden," it only stands to reason that everything pertaining to or concerning the human condition (such as knowledge of good and evil, and mortality) would also be located "in the garden." There would have been no logical reason for God to have placed human knowledge of good and evil outside the realm of humanity.

The creator of the metaphor of the "Tree of Life" had no concept of Jesus, or of the "Messiah." He only knew of "God" and "humanity." And he knew that humans, unlike God, were mortal. There was no concept that God would become mortal, thereby completing humanity and uniting us to God's self. There was no concept of the immortal soul. There was no concept that we would all "go to heaven" when we died, if we had remained obedient to God. There was only an attempt to answer the question of human mortality in the theological terms of the day. So, superimposing our current perspective of the human condition upon a more primitive perspective doesn't work.

Since when does God require a logical reason for anything that God does?

The very presence of a forbidden tree defies logic.
 

fromthe heart

Well-Known Member
Super Universe said:
Dear Miss, can you please tell me where you got this idea that Satan's name was Lucifer and that he once was one of the most beautiful angels?

Certianly...it's in the Bible.
 

fromthe heart

Well-Known Member
Super Universe said:
In the bible? Are you sure about that? Look again...

One mention to Lucifer is in Isaiah 14:12 on...if you'd like I could look up the rest of the verses...but seeing that I'm leaving this forum I guess it won't much matter. You don't have to believe any of what I say...I speak from my own personal beliefs and will only believe what is in the Bible as I see this only as the true Words of God!
 

Smoke

Done here.
angellous_evangellous said:
So you think that the writers of Genesis were Gnostic?
No, no, no. But I think Halcyon's Gnostic interpretation of the myth is much closer to the way the creators of the myth probably viewed it. I think it's clearly a myth of enlightenment, though later Jews, Muslims and Christians -- with a few exceptions -- viewed it in terms of a Fall.

I suspect the myth itself far predates the Pentateuch, and I don't know if I'd want to hazard a guess about how the Yahwist viewed it, much less how the later editors and redactors of the Pentateuch viewed it.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
Super Universe said:
In the bible? Are you sure about that? Look again...
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming…How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
mr.guy said:
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming…How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)
That doesn't say anything about Satan's name being Lucifer.
 

Smoke

Done here.
angellous_evangellous said:
It would help your case if you could locate early rabbinic or other Jewish texts that interpret Genesis either way...
Maybe, but it hardly seems worth the effort, since Paul's view of the Fall is pretty much irrelevant to my view. I'm trying to look at what the myth is likely to have meant to those who originally told the story, and I don't think those people were either Jews or Christians. The early Israelites were clearly polytheists, and later writers have anachronistically read monotheism back into Israelite history. The Yahwist may have thought that Yahweh was powerful, but not necessarily that he was good or loving or kind or fair. I suspect that this was a sort of regional myth that probably didn't even originally feature Yahweh as the deity. But all those uncertainties aside, I don't see any getting around the fact that this must have originally been a myth of enlightenment.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
fromthe heart said:
One mention to Lucifer is in Isaiah 14:12 on...if you'd like I could look up the rest of the verses...but seeing that I'm leaving this forum I guess it won't much matter. You don't have to believe any of what I say...I speak from my own personal beliefs and will only believe what is in the Bible as I see this only as the true Words of God!

Dear Miss, Isaiah 14:12 is the only mention of Lucifer in the entire bible and it is incorrectly applied at that.

This idea that Lucifer is a beautiful angel is perpetuated by man. If you choose to believe it then that is your choice but know that you are following man and not the words of God.

Lucifer is a latin name, Isaiah was written in Hebrew.

Long after Isaiah was written religious leaders inserted the name Lucifer replacing the words "Bright Morning star" because Lucifer in Roman astrology meant "the morning star" (Venus).

I could explain more about who the Bright Morning Star really is but that is getting away from the original topic.

Also, please notice that traditional human interpretation is that the name Beelzebub and Lucifer are Satan. This is incorrect. They are all separate individual beings involved in the Lucifer led rebellion.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Due to my poor english i prefered to let an article to express my opnion and i'll be happy to recieve any question about it (it's in the General Religious Debates)so i hope no one would mind in explaining how islam see this issue.

There is more about the story but i prefered to focus in Adam and Eve's role on earth.

Source: http://islamic-world.net/khalifah/mans_vicegerency.htm

If tawhid (Oneness of God) constitutes the ideological foundation of Islam, the concept of man’s Khilafah (vicegerency/caliphate) provides the operational framework for the Islamic scheme of life.


The story of Adam and Eve is found in almost all religious and major cultural traditions. But in these narrations, fact and fancy are found intermingled. The way the Qur’an narrates this event is crucial to the understanding of the Islamic world-view.


The main outline of the Qur’anic narration is as follows. God declared His intention to send a vicegerent (khalifah) to the earth. He created Adam and Eve from the same substance. They were destined to play this role of vicegerency and were endowed with the ‘knowledge of the things’ to do the job well. Then they were put to a test and were asked not to approach a certain tree. They fell victim to the evil persuasions of Satan and committed sin. But immediately after sinning they repented their mistakes, sought God’s forgiveness and were forgiven. It was after they were forgiven and redeemed that they were sent down to the earth to play their role as vicegerents of God. They were promised Divine Guidance and were assured that those who followed that guidance would be successful. Adam was the first man to receive this guidance and convey it to his progeny.


Some very important inferences follow from this: Islam does not contribute to any theory of the ‘fall of Adam’ symbolizing the fall of man. There was no ‘fall’ at all in that sense. Man was created for the purpose of acting as vicegerent on the earth and he came to the world to fulfill this mission. It represents the rise of man to a new assignment, his tryst with destiny, and not a fall.


The role and status of vicegerency is conferred upon the human being as such, and it is shared by man and woman alike. This lays the foundations of their essential equality as human beings, as vicegerents of God on the earth, whatever their different roles in society may be. Islam does not subscribe to the view that woman led man (Eve leading Adam) to sin and disobedience.


According to the Qur’an “Satan caused them both to deflect therefrom”. Both were held responsible for the act, both repented their transgression and both were forgiven. They entered the world without any stigma of original sin on their soul. Human nature is pure and good. Man has been created in the best of all forms. [Q 95:4] Man and woman are made from the same substance. Every one is born in a state of purity and innocence. Success or failure depends entirely on one’s own beliefs and behavior. [Q 95:5-6; 103:2-3] No one is to be responsible for the shortcomings of others. [Q 6:195]


Man has been given freedom of choice. He is free to accept or deny Reality. He is responsible for his actions, but is not to be deprived of this freedom, even if he makes mistakes and abuses it. The uniqueness of the human situation lies in the man’s psychosocial volition. This is the mainspring of human potential - this is what enables him to rise to the highest pinnacle or to fall into the deepest abyss.


The dangers of misuse of freedom continue to confront man throughout his life on the earth. The challenge from Satan is unceasing. To safeguard man against this, Divine Guidance is provided. The trial of Adam and Eve reveals, on the one hand, the essential goodness of their nature and on the other, their susceptibility to error. This demonstrates man’s need for Divine Guidance.


Man has not been totally protected against error. This would involve negation of the freedom of choice. He may commit errors; his redemption lies in his realization of those errors, in seeking repentance and in turning back to the Right Path. The theory of vicegerency affirms that God’s Creation is deliberate and not fortuitous. Man has been created with a purpose. Everything else in Creation has been harnessed to his service. His life on the earth begins with the consciousness of a mission, not through groupings in darkness. The ideal was set before him through Divine Revelation. The criterion for success has been laid down in clear terms. The signposts of the Right Path have been made manifest. Man’s life on earth is in the nature of a trial. It is timebound.


This life will be followed by an eternal life wherein man shall reap the rewards of his actions in this life. And in this lifelong trial, men and women are equal participants and will be judged as such. Neither is a mere shadow of the other, but both are active co-partners. The Qur’an explicitly states that man and woman will get what they strive for and that the same standard is set for them both as the ultimate criterion for their success.

"And the believers, the men and the women, are friends protecting each other; they command what is proper and forbid what is improper, keep up prayer and pay the Zakat (welfare due); and they obey God and His Messenger. It is these on whom God will have mercy. Surely, God is All-Mighty, All-Wise. God has promised to the believers, men and women, Gardens beneath which rivers flow, forever therein to dwell, and goodly dwelling-places in the Gardens of Eden, and greater than anything else, God’s good pleasure (and acceptance from Him). That is the supreme triumph." (Q 9:71-72)

"And whosoever does a righteous deed, be they male or female, and is a
believer, We shall assuredly given them a goodly life to live; and We shall certainly reward them according to the best of what they did." (Q 16:97)


"Men who surrender to God and women who surrender to God, and men who believe and women who believe, and men who obey and women who obey, and men who persevere (in righteousness) and women who persevere, and men who are humble and women who are humble, and men who give aims and women who gives aims, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their modesty and women who guard their modesty, and men who remember God much and women who remember-God has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward." (Q 33:35)
This is how the Qur’an describes the ideal and the model for men and women and the criterion for the Day of Judgement. This defines what is expected of them as Allah’s vicegerents. This lays the foundation of their equality in their human roles in the world.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
Ðanisty said:
That doesn't say anything about Satan's name being Lucifer.
I suppose it don't; i, too, was running on the assumption of the commonality implied. Removed from the shroud of the satan ascription, a stand alone lucifer seems pretty promethean, don't he?
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
mr.guy said:
I suppose it don't; i, too, was running on the assumption of the commonality implied. Removed from the shroud of the satan ascription, a stand alone lucifer seems pretty promethean, don't he?
Indeed. This is how Luciferians view Lucifer. The connection to Promethius has been made numerous times in the Luciferian community.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Super Universe said:
Also, please notice that traditional human interpretation is that the name Beelzebub and Lucifer are Satan. This is incorrect. They are all separate individual beings involved in the Lucifer led rebellion.
The rest of the post was great, the one mistake i see is the reference to Beelzebub. Beelzebub is not an individual.
Beelzebub is the corruption the the Canaanite word Baal, Baal is not an individual, Baal means "Lord" and is a title, it is the title if innumerable deities in the Canaanite pantheon. Beelzebub is no more a demon than are Osiris or Zeus.
The rest of the post was spot on though. :)

MidnightBlue said:
No, no, no. But I think Halcyon's Gnostic interpretation of the myth is much closer to the way the creators of the myth probably viewed it. I think it's clearly a myth of enlightenment, though later Jews, Muslims and Christians -- with a few exceptions -- viewed it in terms of a Fall.

I suspect the myth itself far predates the Pentateuch, and I don't know if I'd want to hazard a guess about how the Yahwist viewed it, much less how the later editors and redactors of the Pentateuch viewed it.
I agree with all of that. Although when it comes to interpretation, i don't think there can really be a more correct and less correct one.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
MidnightBlue said:
In my view, that's the difference between an old myth and a new myth. Maybe you see both as one and as literal. But I'd be interested to hear your understanding, extrabiblical or not.
It's me! I didn't forget you, but it did take my awhile to remember which thread we were on and then find it again. Okay, so you want to know about the LDS version of the "myth..." (I know I should be offended at that, but I'm not going to bother. It's too much trouble.)

Well, briefly, the additional information (which is all it is, really) that we have is from the book of Moses, in the "Pearl of Great Price," which is part of the LDS canon, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. From this extra-Biblical source, we are reminded that God gave Adam and Eve two commandments. One of them was a "thou shalt" commandment, the other a "thou shalt not" commandment. The only problem was, according to our belief, they could not obey the more important one (which was to multipy and replenish the earth) until after they had made the choice to disobey the less important one (which was to refrain from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil).

We believe that when Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden, they existed in a state of complete innocence. They were also not fully mortal. While they had bodies of flesh and bones, they were immortal in that they were not subject to physical death. But, along with the "inability" to die (for lack of a better way of putting it), they were also unable to create new life. In other words, they could not begin to multiply and replenish the earth. The fact that they did not even realize that they were naked clearly indicates that, until after eating of the forbidden fruit, they did not have the sexual desires that would have led to procreation. In other words, they could stay in Eden forever, but they would be unable to bear and rear children. God's plan for us wouldn't have even gotten off the ground.

God had told them that if they were to eat of the forbidden fruit, they would "surely die." He never meant that they'd drop dead on the spot, but rather that they would experience two forms of death -- one immediate and one later on. From the time they were cast out of the Garden (very soon after their transgression was discovered), they were no longer in God's presence. By being forced to get along by themselves in the world outside of Eden, they were to experience separation from God, or spiritual death. They also became subject to physical death, but this death would not take place for many more years. We believe that Eve recognized that there was a choice to make: she could either eat of the forbidden fruit, thereby gaining a knowledge of good and evil, but reaping the consequences God had said would result in their disobedience or stay in Eden forever, never knowing, or at least understanding good, light, happiness, etc. (because, without their opposites, they would be undiscernable). She wanted for them to be able to obey what she believed was the more important commandment -- multiplying and replenishing the earth, but knew that it meant making the choice to disobey the other commandment.

Once she ate of the forbidden fruit, her eyes were opened to the reality of what she had done and the need to convince Adam that he, too, needed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If she were cast out of the Garden and he were left in it, they would not be able to live as man and wife, to become parents of the human family. Adam, upon recognizing that she had truly made the best decision possible, also ate of the fruit. God, of course, was immediately aware of what had happened, and the rest is history.

This is why we Latter-day Saints hold Adam and Eve in such high esteem. Yes, they disobeyed God, but they did so for a greater good. I hope this helps clarify our doctrine somewhat.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Katzpur said:
I hope this helps clarify our doctrine somewhat.
Fascinating, and -- again, no offense is intended -- really quite ingenious. Thank you for taking the time to share it.
 

may

Well-Known Member
MidnightBlue said:
To me, if somebody says, "If you eat that you'll die," it means you'll die pretty soon, as a result of eating it. It doesn't mean you'll die 900 years later.
it makes no difference, they still started to die, so Jehovah was right and satan was wrong,and they died within the day , not a 24 hour day , but the bible tells me that a thousand years are at times represented as one day in Gods word the bible. so they died within the day , just as God said they would.
However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day 2 peter 3;8

For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past,​

And as a watch during the night. psalm 90;4 .....Adam was 930 when he died so it was within the day .
Finally, after 930 years, most of which was spent in the slow process of dying, Adam returned to the ground from which he was taken, in the year 3096 B.C.E., just as Jehovah had said.

 

EnhancedSpirit

High Priestess
I don't see putting the tree in the garden as setting us up for failure. On the contrary, it was set up for growth. Adam and Eve had the choice of remaining blissfully ignorant FOREVER in the Garden, or becoming as God's, knowing the difference between good and evil. It was a choice God gave them. He said 'don't eat this unless you want to be mortal'. Not 'if you eat this I will punish you for eternity.'
 
Top