The curse of the forbidden fruit.

[Milton Platt]

Hi
You misunderstand but thankfully in a previous post you said........I prefer to think the original authors of the story meant what he said. The original authors when finishing the account of creation, were quite specific about everything being GOOD. When they lost their pristine position they came to realise that their was an opposite to what they had been experiencing. They did not need a "concept of good" when everything was already good. The "Knowledge of Good and Bad" manifested as the realisation that they were now subject to time and death because of their decision.

...................................................

It says the KNOWLEDGE of both good and evil were forbidden.

Also.... this is not what the original authors said. They were forbidden to eat from the tree.... nowhere does that imply that they had no idea of what good or evil is, logically they must have at least known what the words meant for them to mean anything. They were not subject to the vicissitudes of life inherent in being free agents and independent of the Fathers guidance. Evil became real knowledge once the consequences of their actions manifested.
...............................................
If one is reading the story and trying to figure out what the author "really meant" why would you go to the most negative reading possible and defend that particular hill. Surely the author of Genesis wasn't trying to paint the picture that you wish to read into the story. Surely the "original author" was trying to portray God in the best light and that is the context the story should be read in.
Peace

The passages do, indeed call the tree the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". so, yes it does say that. If they already had the knowledge of good and evil, then nothing would have changed when they ate of the tree.
The stories even highlight this change in them. All of a sudden, they realized they were naked and covered themselves up (why being naked is evil, I have no idea. Are we evil every time we take a bath?).
And as I have already pointed out, since they would have had no ability to judge whether something was either good or evil before they were given the ability to discern or label things that way, it is patently wrong for them to be held accountable,

 

[Milton Platt]

Knowledge of good and evil is war hate and fighting. Agree to disagree.

No, war is an act which might be considered evil, it is not the concept of evil itself. And hate can be seen as evil (which would make god evil, since he seemed to hate a number of things), but it is not the concept of evil.

 

[MonkeyFire]

No, war is an act which might be considered evil, it is not the concept of evil itself. And hate can be seen as evil (which would make god evil, since he seemed to hate a number of things), but it is not the concept of evil.

A war is generally between good and evil. However, war itself, as you said, is evil.

 

[Moz]

The passages do, indeed call the tree the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". so, yes it does say that. If they already had the knowledge of good and evil, then nothing would have changed when they ate of the tree.
The stories even highlight this change in them. All of a sudden, they realized they were naked and covered themselves up (why being naked is evil, I have no idea. Are we evil every time we take a bath?).
And as I have already pointed out, since they would have had no ability to judge whether something was either good or evil before they were given the ability to discern or label things that way, it is patently wrong for them to be held accountable,

HI
So even though you wish to "view things as the original author meant it" you are going to use a point of semantic pedentary to attemp to parse the statement into something the original authors would never have countenanced. They had NO intention of the story being read to make God the bad guy.

On the being naked thing.... If you have NO IDEA as you say then how can you come in and throw muck at the story. Shouldn't you have tried to determine what the original authors were trying to get across BEFORE you come in with your critical analysis. It would take ten minutes to browse a couple of different sites to get an overview of what that was all about. It is about the realisation of vunerability. .... It is actually a deeply physchological concept, whch is why we dream of being naked at school or in public or somesuch... It is an expression of feeling vunerable even today.
(of course what you seem to have got from it was.... Are we evil if we take a bath.) have you never seen a sitcom or movie that has the trope of nakedness, the simpsons, southpark, family guy have all riffed off the trope. Could you have not thought of nakedness and put that together from even your contemporary cultural references?
Peace

 

[Moz]

The passages do, indeed call the tree the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". so, yes it does say that. If they already had the knowledge of good and evil, then nothing would have changed when they ate of the tree.
The stories even highlight this change in them. All of a sudden, they realized they were naked and covered themselves up (why being naked is evil, I have no idea. Are we evil every time we take a bath?).
And as I have already pointed out, since they would have had no ability to judge whether something was either good or evil before they were given the ability to discern or label things that way, it is patently wrong for them to be held accountable,

Hi
I have been searching for a site that goes into the "good and evil" thing from the perspective that you are promoting and i can not find any site that argues your belief in the first half dozen pages that came up. Could you please give me a site where i can examine this issue from your perspective. .. I am sure that you must have come across this idea from someone who had looked into the account and shows how the hebrew for knowledge is to be viewed in the way that you require.
You would think that this airtight argument of yours would be in every anti genesis deabte but i can not find anyone who has tried it. Harris, Dawkins, hitchens et al are unaware of this achilles heel to the genesis account, Either you have come up with an objection that no trained anti bible scholar has ever thought of or you are missing something.
Peace

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi
I have been searching for a site that goes into the "good and evil" thing from the perspective that you are promoting and i can not find any site that argues your belief in the first half dozen pages that came up. Could you please give me a site where i can examine this issue from your perspective. .. I am sure that you must have come across this idea from someone who had looked into the account and shows how the hebrew for knowledge is to be viewed in the way that you require.
You would think that this airtight argument of yours would be in every anti genesis deabte but i can not find anyone who has tried it. Harris, Dawkins, hitchens et al are unaware of this achilles heel to the genesis account, Either you have come up with an objection that no trained anti bible scholar has ever thought of or you are missing something.
Peace

It isn't a "belief". I have no religious beliefs. But I do enjoy examining others religious beliefs. I was only pointing out the obvious with regard to a particular passage in Genesis.If a person has no possible way of determining whether an action is good or bad, then it is wholly unjust to hold them accountable for taking an action. They did not possess this knowledge until after they ate of the fruit.
I don't think it originates with me. I'm certain I must have read it someplace, but I have read quite a lot, so memory fails me.
Nothing is ever "air tight" in theology. A theist can always reinterpret things to suit their needs at the moment.

 

[Milton Platt]

HI
So even though you wish to "view things as the original author meant it" you are going to use a point of semantic pedentary to attemp to parse the statement into something the original authors would never have countenanced. They had NO intention of the story being read to make God the bad guy.

On the being naked thing.... If you have NO IDEA as you say then how can you come in and throw muck at the story. Shouldn't you have tried to determine what the original authors were trying to get across BEFORE you come in with your critical analysis. It would take ten minutes to browse a couple of different sites to get an overview of what that was all about. It is about the realisation of vunerability. .... It is actually a deeply physchological concept, whch is why we dream of being naked at school or in public or somesuch... It is an expression of feeling vunerable even today.
(of course what you seem to have got from it was.... Are we evil if we take a bath.) have you never seen a sitcom or movie that has the trope of nakedness, the simpsons, southpark, family guy have all riffed off the trope. Could you have not thought of nakedness and put that together from even your contemporary cultural references?
Peace

I see no reason to think that whoever finally wrote down the story that was very likely passed down orally for some time before didn't mean exactly what they said. I mean, we don't actually have any idea who actually finally wrote it down.

My own guess is that the writer was just recording a myth that had been passed along for a long time, and didn't give any more thought to it. If you have any evidence from the anonymous author or others from that time period that shows it is "deeply psychological", then please share.

If you know why being naked is evil, then please share.

 

[Moz]

It isn't a "belief". I have no religious beliefs. But I do enjoy examining others religious beliefs. I was only pointing out the obvious with regard to a particular passage in Genesis.If a person has no possible way of determining whether an action is good or bad, then it is wholly unjust to hold them accountable for taking an action. They did not possess this knowledge until after they ate of the fruit.
I don't think it originates with me. I'm certain I must have read it someplace, but I have read quite a lot, so memory fails me.
Nothing is ever "air tight" in theology. A theist can always reinterpret things to suit their needs at the moment.

Hi
I don't want to go round and round endlessly and i do understand that if you want to read the line as you interpret it then... cool.
However, what got me to respond in the first place was your insistence that we needed to view it in the light of what the "original authors" meant.
Are you saying that the "original authors" were saying that God is wholly unjust?
Are you saying that the "original authors" were too stupid to realise what they were doing?
Are you saying that the way the issue has been viewed by beleivers for 4000 years is wrong and that your logical reading trumps them?
Should we not view how these words have been understood for 4000 years and give that some weight?

Yes you have a semantic argument that may have been appropiate if we were translating from a dead language that had been lost for millenia and now has to be reconstructed. That is not what we have here. The diverse contextual meaning of hebrew words is very well understood and none of the contemporary commentators have ever agrued for the reading you wish to impose. While 'possible" it is highly unlikely, approaching impossibe, that the original authors meant what you propose.

It seemed strange for a non beleiver to try and tell a beleiver what the authors meant about a certain passage and insist that his view of literary criticism and the context in which certain words should be viewed is a definitive opinion. Surley a beleiver who has read the book in some depth would have a better idea of the conceptual meaning of words and situations better than some one who has no in depth knowedge of the subject.

Oh course all this is moot as you began by saying that this is not a "beleif" of yours anyway. It is just a semantic reading that can not be confirmed within the passage itself that you have ceased on to slag of the bible. Any serious research would show that there are many better ways to view it and keep within the integrity of what the "original authors" meant.
Peace

 

[Moz]

I see no reason to think that whoever finally wrote down the story that was very likely passed down orally for some time before didn't mean exactly what they said. I mean, we don't actually have any idea who actually finally wrote it down.

My own guess is that the writer was just recording a myth that had been passed along for a long time, and didn't give any more thought to it. If you have any evidence from the anonymous author or others from that time period that shows it is "deeply psychological", then please share.

If you know why being naked is evil, then please share.

HI
Yeah a single writer wrote a story and "forced" everyone to beleive it. That is NOT the way anthropologists and social darwinians view it. Even dawkins is forced to admitt that his "biological memes" are in actuallity the architypal stories of mankind encoded into our being and then recorded in the 'myths'of our ancestors.
By the way you do not have to GUESS, . The mechanisms for cultural transmission of "tribal wisdom" are well documented and they are NOT writing down myths from the past without giving any thought to them. That is really an outlandish statement.

And again you make the claim the original authors were either too stupid to realise what they were saying or that they were saying god is unjust... Either way it does not seem to fit with what they went on to claim. They seemed to think god was a pretty good guy from the way they speak of him. . I do not think that god is an unjust monster was in their narrative outline.
PEACE.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi
I don't want to go round and round endlessly and i do understand that if you want to read the line as you interpret it then... cool.
However, what got me to respond in the first place was your insistence that we needed to view it in the light of what the "original authors" meant.
Are you saying that the "original authors" were saying that God is wholly unjust?
Are you saying that the "original authors" were too stupid to realise what they were doing?
Are you saying that the way the issue has been viewed by beleivers for 4000 years is wrong and that your logical reading trumps them?
Should we not view how these words have been understood for 4000 years and give that some weight?

Yes you have a semantic argument that may have been appropiate if we were translating from a dead language that had been lost for millenia and now has to be reconstructed. That is not what we have here. The diverse contextual meaning of hebrew words is very well understood and none of the contemporary commentators have ever agrued for the reading you wish to impose. While 'possible" it is highly unlikely, approaching impossibe, that the original authors meant what you propose.

It seemed strange for a non beleiver to try and tell a beleiver what the authors meant about a certain passage and insist that his view of literary criticism and the context in which certain words should be viewed is a definitive opinion. Surley a beleiver who has read the book in some depth would have a better idea of the conceptual meaning of words and situations better than some one who has no in depth knowedge of the subject.

Oh course all this is moot as you began by saying that this is not a "beleif" of yours anyway. It is just a semantic reading that can not be confirmed within the passage itself that you have ceased on to slag of the bible. Any serious research would show that there are many better ways to view it and keep within the integrity of what the "original authors" meant.
Peace

I am only saying that you have no basis to believe the writer meant anything other than what he actually stated.

 

[Milton Platt]

HI
Yeah a single writer wrote a story and "forced" everyone to beleive it. That is NOT the way anthropologists and social darwinians view it. Even dawkins is forced to admitt that his "biological memes" are in actuallity the architypal stories of mankind encoded into our being and then recorded in the 'myths'of our ancestors.
By the way you do not have to GUESS, . The mechanisms for cultural transmission of "tribal wisdom" are well documented and they are NOT writing down myths from the past without giving any thought to them. That is really an outlandish statement.

And again you make the claim the original authors were either too stupid to realise what they were saying or that they were saying god is unjust... Either way it does not seem to fit with what they went on to claim. They seemed to think god was a pretty good guy from the way they speak of him. . I do not think that god is an unjust monster was in their narrative outline.
PEACE.

I never suggested anyone was forced to believe anything...where do you get that from??? I have no idea what the intelligence level of the person who originally wrote down the stories was. Neither does anyone else, including you.
I have no idea if it was a single writer or multiple writers, either. Not that it matters.
I am sure he gave thought to them. I am not sure he was cognizant of the logical problems the story produced. Therefore, I can only go by what the author him/her self wrote down. I see no place n the story where the author made even a suggestion that he meant anything beyond what was written.
You can get up in arms all you want. I have done nothing more than take the author at his word,

 

[Moz]

I never suggested anyone was forced to believe anything...where do you get that from??? I have no idea what the intelligence level of the person who originally wrote down the stories was. Neither does anyone else, including you.
I have no idea if it was a single writer or multiple writers, either. Not that it matters.
I am sure he gave thought to them. I am not sure he was cognizant of the logical problems the story produced. Therefore, I can only go by what the author him/her self wrote down. I see no place n the story where the author made even a suggestion that he meant anything beyond what was written.
You can get up in arms all you want. I have done nothing more than take the author at his word,

Hi
Ok, in your opinion, the writers of genesis were meaning to paint god as an unjust monster because he gave adam and eve a choice they could not have understood.

Although this is not your Beleif, just something that 'might' be the way they meant it but.... Then you say you have taken the author at his word.
So do you BELEIVE what you are saying or are you merely admitting that it could be read in a number of ways and you PREFER the reading that makes God a monster, because as you have seen there are other ways to look at it and MOST people, biblical and secular do not take it the way you seem to or don't seem to depending on which hat you are wearing at the time.
Peace

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi
Ok, in your opinion, the writers of genesis were meaning to paint god as an unjust monster because he gave adam and eve a choice they could not have understood.

Although this is not your Beleif, just something that 'might' be the way they meant it but.... Then you say you have taken the author at his word.
So do you BELEIVE what you are saying or are you merely admitting that it could be read in a number of ways and you PREFER the reading that makes God a monster, because as you have seen there are other ways to look at it and MOST people, biblical and secular do not take it the way you seem to or don't seem to depending on which hat you are wearing at the time.
Peace

I do not know what the writers intended to "paint god" as. I can only look at what they wrote down and follow it to the logical conclusion. I prefer to assume that the writer meant what they actually wrote down until there is something from the writer that shows he did not mean what he said. That is all there is to it. If you can show where the writer indicated that he was not speaking literally, then I'm okay with that. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm an atheist. What I do know is that the Bible is continually reinterpreted by everyone to suit their own viewpoints all the time. If you want to reinterpret this or any other passage to make it fit your preferred narrative, you are one in a vast crowd who do the same.
What nobody seems to grasp is that if everything in the Bible can be (or must be) interpreted by individual humans, then it reduces the stories to nothing but pulp fiction, and not the divinely inspired word of a deity.

And let me take a moment to say that I have enjoyed the give and take with you. I do get pointed....I correspond with a rather large number of believers of various supernatural things, and I try to simply be clear and to the point. This is for clarity's and expedience's sake, not to be a jerk or rude. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. That is your right and privilege. I will (and have) defend that right.

 

[Moz]

I do not know what the writers intended to "paint god" as. I can only look at what they wrote down and follow it to the logical conclusion. I prefer to assume that the writer meant what they actually wrote down until there is something from the writer that shows he did not mean what he said. That is all there is to it. If you can show where the writer indicated that he was not speaking literally, then I'm okay with that. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm an atheist. What I do know is that the Bible is continually reinterpreted by everyone to suit their own viewpoints all the time. If you want to reinterpret this or any other passage to make it fit your preferred narrative, you are one in a vast crowd who do the same.
What nobody seems to grasp is that if everything in the Bible can be (or must be) interpreted by individual humans, then it reduces the stories to nothing but pulp fiction, and not the divinely inspired word of a deity.

And let me take a moment to say that I have enjoyed the give and take with you. I do get pointed....I correspond with a rather large number of believers of various supernatural things, and I try to simply be clear and to the point. This is for clarity's and expedience's sake, not to be a jerk or rude. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. That is your right and privilege. I will (and have) defend that right.

Hello

Thank you for the offer to defend my rights i can sense the training, you have chosen a strong hill to defend. Actually it is unassailable in many ways. It is the same as the John1:1 argument both sides are right in the linguistics of the matter.

But there may be a small widow, you say above ..... I do not know what the writers intended however the reason i even tried to assault this particular hill was your earlier statement......I prefer to think the original authors of the story meant what he said.
If you do not know what the author intended then how can you be sure what he meant?
How would we decide?

Now given that the word knowledge can have multiple meanings, in this case conceptual knowledge and experiential knowledge we need to make a choice as to what the author meant. I have the conceptual knowledge that "war is hell" but not the experiential knowledge. I both Know and do not Know and there is no contradiction. If the verse read "The knowledge of war and peace" ... i know peace and can conceptualize war but do not know war... i don't think i'm being tricky or slippery with the logic it seems reasonable and appropriate.

So again it is back to the "author" and what he meant. Context is the only guide. I submitt that the authors were likely to be portraying God in a positive light and the verse should be read in that manner. This would also seem consistent with how the authors of the latter biblical stories developed the theme. Of course there is no linguistic or semantic proof to this or the other reading but the weight of context and the majority of commentary over the last 4000 years has taken that view as well.
Finally... i am also enjoying the back and forth. I apologize if at times i seem combatant or snarky, the nature of the medium seems to bring it out in us. I often look back on things days later and regret the way i put some things. Ah well. Such is life.

If you do want to continue then possibly the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge is the flank that needs to locked down. It does seem to be the crux or the matter.
Peace

 

[Moz]

Hello

Thank you for the offer to defend my rights i can sense the training, you have chosen a strong hill to defend. Actually it is unassailable in many ways. It is the same as the John1:1 argument both sides are right in the linguistics of the matter.

But there may be a small widow, you say above ..... I do not know what the writers intended however the reason i even tried to assault this particular hill was your earlier statement......I prefer to think the original authors of the story meant what he said.
If you do not know what the author intended then how can you be sure what he meant?
How would we decide?

Now given that the word knowledge can have multiple meanings, in this case conceptual knowledge and experiential knowledge we need to make a choice as to what the author meant. I have the conceptual knowledge that "war is hell" but not the experiential knowledge. I both Know and do not Know and there is no contradiction. If the verse read "The knowledge of war and peace" ... i know peace and can conceptualize war but do not know war... i don't think i'm being tricky or slippery with the logic it seems reasonable and appropriate.

So again it is back to the "author" and what he meant. Context is the only guide. I submitt that the authors were likely to be portraying God in a positive light and the verse should be read in that manner. This would also seem consistent with how the authors of the latter biblical stories developed the theme. Of course there is no linguistic or semantic proof to this or the other reading but the weight of context and the majority of commentary over the last 4000 years has taken that view as well.
Finally... i am also enjoying the back and forth. I apologize if at times i seem combatant or snarky, the nature of the medium seems to bring it out in us. I often look back on things days later and regret the way i put some things. Ah well. Such is life.

If you do want to continue then possibly the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge is the flank that needs to locked down. It does seem to be the crux or the matter.
Peace

Hi
One more thing... this has been very good for me. Turning this stuff over in my head the last couple of days has forced me to clarify things that i had not even realized that i needed to think about it so thank you for that.
Peace

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello

Thank you for the offer to defend my rights i can sense the training, you have chosen a strong hill to defend. Actually it is unassailable in many ways. It is the same as the John1:1 argument both sides are right in the linguistics of the matter.

But there may be a small widow, you say above ..... I do not know what the writers intended however the reason i even tried to assault this particular hill was your earlier statement......I prefer to think the original authors of the story meant what he said.
If you do not know what the author intended then how can you be sure what he meant?
How would we decide?

Now given that the word knowledge can have multiple meanings, in this case conceptual knowledge and experiential knowledge we need to make a choice as to what the author meant. I have the conceptual knowledge that "war is hell" but not the experiential knowledge. I both Know and do not Know and there is no contradiction. If the verse read "The knowledge of war and peace" ... i know peace and can conceptualize war but do not know war... i don't think i'm being tricky or slippery with the logic it seems reasonable and appropriate.

So again it is back to the "author" and what he meant. Context is the only guide. I submitt that the authors were likely to be portraying God in a positive light and the verse should be read in that manner. This would also seem consistent with how the authors of the latter biblical stories developed the theme. Of course there is no linguistic or semantic proof to this or the other reading but the weight of context and the majority of commentary over the last 4000 years has taken that view as well.
Finally... i am also enjoying the back and forth. I apologize if at times i seem combatant or snarky, the nature of the medium seems to bring it out in us. I often look back on things days later and regret the way i put some things. Ah well. Such is life.

If you do want to continue then possibly the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge is the flank that needs to locked down. It does seem to be the crux or the matter.
Peace

I also would assume the author was trying to portray his god in a good way....after it is the god he believes in.
But I don’t think the ancient writer had a firm grasp of logic and did not see the logical trap he was setting for his god. If he had merely said it was the tree of the knowledge of evil, he might have gotten a pass.
I have not seen anything you have written that I would take offense at. After all, If I am going to challenge your beliefs, I would expect the same from you.

 

[Moz]

I also would assume the author was trying to portray his god in a good way....after it is the god he believes in.
But I don’t think the ancient writer had a firm grasp of logic and did not see the logical trap he was setting for his god. If he had merely said it was the tree of the knowledge of evil, he might have gotten a pass.
I have not seen anything you have written that I would take offense at. After all, If I am going to challenge your beliefs, I would expect the same from you.

Hi
I'm gonna change hats and come at this from your side of the fence and assume the Bible was a human construct. The Genesis account recorded in the mid 1000's bce has noted similarities to the Gilamesh mesopotamian creation stories. They are in some sense different versions of the same story. The Bible account is much more compressed but it is by no means an unsophisticated story, it confronts the issues of chaos and order and the way to navigate through this world. Take the seemingly simple trope of them realizing they were naked. It is almost a cliche now to relate a dream of being naked in public exposed to your peers or betters. The psychological meanings are well understood by people today. That is a pretty sophisticated concept to have in a little innocuous line like "they realized they were naked.
The fact that the story is about a "tree, fruit and a serpent" is also more profound than the surface reading conveys. Evolutionary biologists have identified the snake as one of the factors that drove our cognitive evolution. When we were tree dwellers our vision was adapted to identify and avoid the serpent and to identify fruit, it is a spooky thing. If you google "Threat detection and snakes" there are some interesting studies. Anyway... my point is that the seemingly simple stories in Genesis have an onion peel depth that shows a deep sophistication of thought. So i do not think they got themselves caught in a logic trap. I think they were being more sophisticated than the surface reading and were contrasting conceptual verses experiential knowledge.

Can you give a response to the conceptual knowledge verses experiential knowledge aspect if you can just so i know why you are leaning the way you do.

Half a dozen posts each over a single word. I'm not sure what i feel about that.. something akin to frustration and wonder i guess. It is not unpleasant though. To even get a glimpse into anothers thought process is disconcerting at times.

Peace

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi
I'm gonna change hats and come at this from your side of the fence and assume the Bible was a human construct. The Genesis account recorded in the mid 1000's bce has noted similarities to the Gilamesh mesopotamian creation stories. They are in some sense different versions of the same story. The Bible account is much more compressed but it is by no means an unsophisticated story, it confronts the issues of chaos and order and the way to navigate through this world. Take the seemingly simple trope of them realizing they were naked. It is almost a cliche now to relate a dream of being naked in public exposed to your peers or betters. The psychological meanings are well understood by people today. That is a pretty sophisticated concept to have in a little innocuous line like "they realized they were naked.
The fact that the story is about a "tree, fruit and a serpent" is also more profound than the surface reading conveys. Evolutionary biologists have identified the snake as one of the factors that drove our cognitive evolution. When we were tree dwellers our vision was adapted to identify and avoid the serpent and to identify fruit, it is a spooky thing. If you google "Threat detection and snakes" there are some interesting studies. Anyway... my point is that the seemingly simple stories in Genesis have an onion peel depth that shows a deep sophistication of thought. So i do not think they got themselves caught in a logic trap. I think they were being more sophisticated than the surface reading and were contrasting conceptual verses experiential knowledge.

Can you give a response to the conceptual knowledge verses experiential knowledge aspect if you can just so i know why you are leaning the way you do.

Half a dozen posts each over a single word. I'm not sure what i feel about that.. something akin to frustration and wonder i guess. It is not unpleasant though. To even get a glimpse into anothers thought process is disconcerting at times.

Peace

I do see your point, and if it were a more modern writer, I could possibly agree with you assuming certain other things about the story, including context. But I don't think that the writer from that long ago understood modern psychology concepts.

Am I to assume that you believe virtually none of Genesis is literal, then? and if that is not the case, what is the method you are using to tell the difference between literal and allegorical?

 

[Moz]

I also would assume the author was trying to portray his god in a good way....after it is the god he believes in.
But I don’t think the ancient writer had a firm grasp of logic and did not see the logical trap he was setting for his god. If he had merely said it was the tree of the knowledge of evil, he might have gotten a pass.
I have not seen anything you have written that I would take offense at. After all, If I am going to challenge your beliefs, I would expect the same from you.

Hi
My dam brain won't stop.
It seems to me that you have agreed that author would have been trying to portray God in a good way. You also seem to be saying that he made a mistake in his sentence construction and did not see the potential error in logic.
So you are not saying that God gave an unjust test but rather the the author should have worded it clearer, would that be a fair conclusion.
Peace

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi
My dam brain won't stop.
It seems to me that you have agreed that author would have been trying to portray God in a good way. You also seem to be saying that he made a mistake in his sentence construction and did not see the potential error in logic.
So you are not saying that God gave an unjust test but rather the the author should have worded it clearer, would that be a fair conclusion.
Peace

I totally get the brain thing......

Had not considered that angle, but well, yes, that might have been the case. From my perspective (atheistic) it is an argument against the existence of the god, or at least against the supposed benevolence of the god. But if the god does exist, it could also be that the writer simply bungled the job, as you say. but what would that say about the trustworthiness of the Bible, then?

Got to hit the rack.....I will turn back into a pumpkin soon.