ecco
Veteran Member
OK
No. It was meant to be taken seriously and literally. It was meant to show "the people" that God is a bada$$.
-
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!
Let's Give Thanks That A&E Ate That Apple
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
InChrist
Free4ever
Why would God build a fence or put the tree elsewhere? He had it there for a purpose. Obviously, God knew they would eat the fruit, but nevertheless, He gave them clear instructions not to. They didn't have to eat the fruit. God had given them a beautiful home with everything they needed. He loved and interacted with them daily..They made the choice to listen to the lies of the serpent and ignore the words of God. They betrayed the loving relationship with God and broke trust.
The tree was there to give them a choice. A very simple test of their loyalty. They chose to trust lies and their own perceptions over the wisdom, goodness, and love of God.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not much of one. We have known that the Bible is wrong and cannot be taken literally for quite some time. Ironically his source was not very good either. It starts with two people and there never were only two people.
And yet, since the tree gave them the knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't know ahead of time that being disloyal in this way was wrong. Sure, they were given a choice, but it is the choice given to an infant who knows no better.
InChrist
Free4ever
I disagree. I don't think there is any indication that they had the mentality of infants. God had Adam name all the animals, Adam and Eve tended the garden, and they walked and interacted with God each day. Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil experientially, but I don't think that means they didn't understand God's love and goodness for them (they were experiencing complete goodness in the the garden) or what they were not supposed to do (eat the fruit).
gnostic
The Lost One
Except that the serpent didn’t lie.
God stated and told Adam that if he was to eat the fruit, he would die then and there on that day (Genesis 2:16-17).
“Genesis 2:16-17” said:
The serpent said to Eve that she wouldn’t die (Genesis 3:4-5). The serpent told her that their eyes would open and they would know the differences between right and wrong, like God.
“Genesis 3:4-5” said:
And when Adam and Eve did eat them, their eyes did open:
“Genesis 3:6-7” said:
And when god found out what they did he cursed them, and expulse them from Eden. But they didn’t die that day. Adam got to live 930 years with Eve.
The serpent told Eve the truth.
But I don’t think God punished them for eating the fruit, but for disobeying his command, and the punishments were that they would toil for a living, and they would know pain and suffering throughout their lives, before they died.
Disobeying God was the sin, not whether they die or not, or whether their eyes would open or not, depending on if they fail or succeed in obeying God.
I don’t think any part of the story in Eden to be real or historical. It is allegory, like one of Jesus’ parables, a teaching mechanism, meant to teach people “moral”, so the Eden narrative have hidden meaning, and it mean, don’t disobey God.
The Flood story isn’t history and it never happened, but here too, are moral messages hidden in, and it is again about sins and punishment.
The Flood narrative was clearly borrowed from the Babylonian Flood myths, and modified for audience of when it was composed in early 1st millennium BCE, hence it wasn’t written by Moses, according to Jewish and Christian traditions, because there was no Moses any more than there were Adam and Eve, or Noah.
In Genesis, Noah replaced the Babylonian Utnapishtim (eg Epic of Gilgamesh), but Utnapishtim is based on the Old Babylonian Atrahasis (eg Epic of Atrahasis), and Atrahasis was derived from 3rd millennium BCE Sumerian hero, Ziusudra, the original Flood hero (sources, Eridu Genesis and the Death of Gilgames).
In the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah and the Bronze Age Canaan, the people living in that regions and in their respective times, weren’t living in isolation, they were ignorant of stories from other cultures and other civilisations.
The Levant region, particularly of 2nd millennium Canaan and (1st half of) 1st millennium BCE Israel/Judah were part of the trade routes, where east meets west, north meets south.
And Babylonian texts found their ways to the west, as far back as mid-2nd millennium BCE, because Babylonian tablets on the Epic of Gilgamesh were found in Hattusa (Hittite capital), in Amarna (Egypt, the spiritual capital of the monotheistic Akhenaten), Ugarit (in northwest Syria) and in Megiddo (Canaan). The fact that these tablets were found outside of Babylonia, tell us that the Epic of Gilgamesh (as well as other tales) was very popular in the west, therefore the 1st millennium Hebrew authors would have known the flood stories of Utnapishtim/Atrahasis/Ziusudra.
But back to Eden story. Adam and Eve weren’t real historical characters and Genesis creation story wasn’t historical event.
But the character of God, as tester of man, if God truly knows they would fail the test, then God himself is more like the archetype Trickster.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not what the myth says. The tree that they could not eat of was the tree of knowledge. The tree that gave them the ability to discern right from wrong. How do you justify ignoring that part of the myth but taking the rest of it literally?
gnostic
The Lost One
The problem with the Eden myth, is that before eating the forbidden fruit, they didn’t know wrong from right and vice versa.
Despite god’s commandment and warning, without the knowledge of right and wrong, or good and bad, they would not be equipped to know disobeying god would be bad for them. Only when they did eat the fruit, did they understand the consequences.
The Eden narrative place Adam and Eve in the Scylla and Charybdis situation, they were damned either ways.
In the Gnostic story, the Apocryphron of John, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, became the Tree of Wisdom, or more precisely the Tree of Gnosis. And their creator was evil, while the serpent was an illusion of Jesus. Eating the fruit was a good thing, giving them enlightenment or Gnosis, which was the real origin of creation, not by the creator (archon) of the physical world, but by that of the One, the real first Aeon.
It is a very complex creation myth, but in many ways it make more sense than the Genesis creation. Nevertheless it is still a myth, just like that of Genesis.
InChrist
Free4ever
I'm not ignoring anything in the account. It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God gave them the ability to discern good and evil, eating the fruit gave them, sadly, the EXPERIENCE of evil in comparison with good. They already knew good, but had not known or experienced evil. Does one have to try every wrong behavior to know about the negative consequences?
InChrist
Free4ever
They did die that day. Their relationship with God was broken and they died spiritually and as death entered the world they also began the process of physical death.
The definition is subjective:
“Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.[3]” —Omniscience - Wikipedia
The Scriptures you presented say nothing about God knowing how certain specific individuals will choose to act. (There are actually very few people, that God ordained and manipulated ahead of time to get His purpose accomplished. Cyrus the Great is one, Jeremiah and Jesus Christ are two others.)
Nothing is predestined.
If God knew, say, that Cain would kill Abel, why did He encourage Cain to “turn to doing good”? Wouldn’t that have been fruitless?
What about Jonah and Nineveh?
And then we have the account of Jehovah speaking to Abraham concerning Sodom and Gomorrah....He said, “I will go down to see if their actions fully justify the outcry that has reached Me. If not, I will find out.” — Genesis 18:20-21
Does it seem as if God knew this ahead of time? Nope.
gnostic
The Lost One
There are no mention of spirit or spiritual in Genesis creation, so the spiritual death is nothing more than speculative interpretations.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Back to the OP:
Fortunately, Darkmater2525 has already fabricated a lovely video which hexplains everythin' in plain animation. (NSFW: language)
Alternate version, that is for more sensitive sorts who don't like certain words:
Fortunately, Darkmater2525 has already fabricated a lovely video which hexplains everythin' in plain animation. (NSFW: language)
Enjoy:
Alternate version, that is for more sensitive sorts who don't like certain words:
Last edited by a moderator:
gnostic
The Lost One
No oceans or seas?
Misunderstood is ignoring...
- ...the deep or the abyss, where “the winds of God swept over the face of waters” (Genesis 1:2),
- the separation of dry lands from waters (seas or oceans) on the 3rd day of creation (1:9-10),
- and last, but not least, God created fishes and other marine life that lived in the sea, which is the 5th day of creation (1:20-22), where god told the fishes to “be fruitful and multiply” in “the waters of the seas” (1:22).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, he didn't. Re-read the tale. It was not until after they are that they knew.
To put it mildly your version of God screwed the pooch. He made Adam and Eve with a design flaw and then blamed them for his error.
Skwim
Veteran Member
everything
pronoun
ev·ery·thing | \ ˈev-rē-ˌthiŋ \
Definition of everything
1a : all that exists
pronoun
ev·ery·thing | \ ˈev-rē-ˌthiŋ \
Definition of everything
1a : all that exists
.
everythingI'll take the 87% as indicative of the common Christian belief. As to what "omniscience" means I go along with the "everything" as mentioned in the poll. 87% of Christians believe god knows an unqualified everything.
everything
pronoun
ev·ery·thing | \ ˈev-rē-ˌthiŋ \
Definition of everything
1a : all that exists
.
pronoun
ev·ery·thing | \ ˈev-rē-ˌthiŋ \
Definition of everything
1a : all that **exists**
The future does not “exist”.....yet.
Consider.
1) It is estimated that 108,470,690,115 people have lived on Earth.*
2) The world has a land area of 57,308,738 Square Miles**
3) This means that that there would be 1,893 people for every square mile.
4) Right now, with a world population of 7.6 billion,*** there are only about 133 people for every square mile.
5) This means that had A & E not eaten the apple, no one would have died, and today there would be 14 times as many people on Earth.
Think this would be all that desirable; 1,893 people for every square mile versus 133 people?
* source
** source
*** source
Skwim,
From what I have read, your estimates are too high, but that makes no difference. Notice what God said when He created Adam and Eve, Genesis 1:26-28, God said to multiply and fill the earth, not over fill it. If God could create all the things He did, I don’t think it would have been too hard to stop procreation, when He wanted to.
I have read that only about 20 to 30 Billion have lived on earth, which would make about a fourth of all that have ever lived, are alive today. One reason for the discrepancy is that many believe that man has been on earth much longer than he has. Bible Chronology, found in Kings and Chronicles, which can be traced back to Adam and Eve, show that Adam was created in 4026BC.
A very important point that ismissed here is, if Adam had not sinned all people living on earth today would be enjoying a Paradise earth, with everlasting life to look forward to, with no sickness and many, many things to interest all of us.
Audie
Veteran Member
And you trust all the lies in that book.