The Fall of Man? (yes, AGAIN)

[one_raven]

Yes, but he is claiming their free will is a result of being created in "God's image". Which is something else entirely, not to mention Genesis never says anything about free will being an attribute of those created in God's image.

Actually, that was only half his argument...

First, simply because they had the freedom to choose disobedience

So I don't think it is reasonable to discount his entire argument, nor discount the notion that they had free will in the Garden of Eden.

This can't be true since the earth being "barren", and the woman having pains in childbirth, and the man sweating all of his days in the field were all "consequences" which God never mentioned in the first place.

And remember, since Genesis never state it, we can't assume it.

I disagree.
God also didn't state that they would be banished from the Garden if they did not heed his advice, yet that's what happened.
The part about Adam having to toil in the barren fields and all stands to reason as a natural consequence, since they were barred from the verdant lands of the Garden. If they were barred access from the garden, they would have to sewat and toil to feed themselves. Perfectly reasonable, though it was not explicitly stated in the tale.

I admit that I can not figure out why Eve's pain in childbirth would be increased, and any reasoning I try seems too great of a leap.
This is far from a complete theory, though.

One other thing that throws a wrench in the works of what you said about it not being a commandment, therefore it not being a test is...

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

It WAS a commandment.

If you say He did not do it out of anger then the sanity of a God who curses His own children, in addition to driving them out of Eden, just because they chose to make their own decisions, is brought into question.
So saying Adam and Eve were not cursed because God was hurt/angry makes the very act nonsensical - there was no point to it.

He drove them out of Eden to keep them from the Tree of Life, to keep them from becoming "like Gods".
Not to punish them.

 

[§outh§tar]

So I don't think it is reasonable to discount his entire argument, nor discount the notion that they had free will in the Garden of Eden.

I never said they didn't have free will beforehand; I assumed free will in my interpretation also. He was agreeing that they had free will too, EXCEPT that he wanted to use the "created in God's image" thing as an explanation.

I disagree.
God also didn't state that they would be banished from the Garden if they did not heed his advice, yet that's what happened.
The part about Adam having to toil in the barren fields and all stands to reason as a natural consequence, since they were barred from the verdant lands of the Garden. If they were barred access from the garden, they would have to sewat and toil to feed themselves. Perfectly reasonable, though it was not explicitly stated in the tale.

I admit that I can not figure out why Eve's pain in childbirth would be increased, and any reasoning I try seems too great of a leap.
This is far from a complete theory, though.

One other thing that throws a wrench in the works of what you said about it not being a commandment, therefore it not being a test is...

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

It WAS a commandment.

Well... that's really not my problem.

You see, nowhere in Genesis can you actually QUOTE God saying "You must not eat of it." The truth is, NOWHERE in Genesis was He ever recorded as saying that. Therefore you can't really pin this one on me - I'm just going on what is given explicitly. If the Bible wants to contradict itself by making up a phrase which was previously nonexistent, or wants to change the grammar of the phrase to change it from a suggestion to a command then that's not my business.

You can see from my analogy with the bright fruit in the forest that what God said was indeed a recommendation.

This, which is advice given:

You must not eat bright fruits from the forest, for when you do, you will surely die

is not the same as this, which is an order:

You must not eat bright fruits from the forest.

Again, imagine you tell your friend: "Don't go out without an umbrella because it might rain today". You are obviously not commanding your friend to not go out if he doesn't take an umbrella; you are simply recommending that he take an umbrella.

That is totally different from giving the command, "Don't go out without an umbrella", which is in the imperative mood form. Context often helps us determine whether "You shouldn't eat too much" is a suggestion or a command - as you can see, it can easily be one or the other. In this context, I find it best to think of God's original statement as a suggestion and not a command. When we think of it as a command, the whole thing collapses and nothing makes sense. Adam and Eve couldn't have known beforehand (without having any knowledge of Good or Evil) that disobeying the command was "bad" or that life in Eden was "better" than life outside of Eden (they had never even been outside) and therefore God's fury at them would be nonsensical. This is why we shouldn't interpret it as a command.

That later amendment where God abbreviates his words to make it seem like a command, if you are willing to consider, actually conforms to the explanation I gave earlier.

Let's have an example:

You suggest to your roommate, "Don't go outside without your umbrella because it might rain". He goes out and comes back soaking wet. He gets a flu that night. While spending time nursing him instead of studying or whatever, you scold him: "I warned you not to go outside without your umbrella!" Obviously, your initial statement was not a command, but after he gets sick, you change it around to sound like a command, making it seem like he disobeyed what you told him and ended up getting sick.

This is not abnormal human behavior, so I don't see why the original story makers couldn't have intended it so. After all, they were anthropomorphizing God.
You

He drove them out of Eden to keep them from the Tree of Life, to keep them from becoming "like Gods".
Not to punish them.

That makes even less sense since they had already eaten from the Tree.

Think about it this way:

If eating from the Tree the first time did not make them become "like Gods", then there was no point to God driving them out and cursing their lives.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to say God drove them out to "keep them from becoming" like Himself since it would be a little too late for that.

 

[one_raven]

I never said they didn't have free will beforehand; I assumed free will in my interpretation also. He was agreeing that they had free will too, EXCEPT that he wanted to use the "created in God's image" thing as an explanation.

Fair enough.

You see, nowhere in Genesis can you actually QUOTE God saying "You must not eat of it." The truth is, NOWHERE in Genesis was He ever recorded as saying that.

NIV Genesis 3:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
:bugeye:

What if I say to someone, "Sure, you can crash at my apartment. Keep in mind, though... You must not go into the basement, for if you do, you will die."

What would they assume?
Seems reasonable to me to assume that I mean if you go into my basement, I'm going to kill you.
That is a commandment with consequences if you disobey it.

That makes even less sense since they had already eaten from the Tree.

Think about it this way:

If eating from the Tree the first time did not make them become "like Gods", then there was no point to God driving them out and cursing their lives.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to say God drove them out to "keep them from becoming" like Himself since it would be a little too late for that.

What makes them "like Gods" is the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. self-determinism entirely devoid of guidance from a higher power) COMBINED WITH immortality. By removing them from access to the Tree of Life, he deprives them of immortality.

 

[§outh§tar]

Does anyone know where the idea of "free will" comes from in the bible? I asked this question on another thread...Proof That God Does Not Exist (or something close to that).

The term 'free will' is of course not itself present even in English translations, but there are adumbrations in the New Testament which are less obscure than their OT counterparts. As a result, Calvinism looks to the NT primarily (maybe exclusively) for corroboration of the predestination doctrine.

Things didn't get really philosophical as far as the Bible goes until the New Testament books. Some verses there imply the sovereignty of God in determining who gets saved and who doesn't, while others stress the responsibility of the individual to accept grace through faith (or works, or both).

Overall, the theme of omniscience has cast doubt on the ability of man to effect his own salvation, and thus, his free will.

(Look up 'Calvinism verses' on Google and see what you make of them for yourself)

 

[one_raven]

It is implied.
If free will was not a reality, works and actions would mean nothing whatsoever.
"Sin" would be a meaningless word.

 

[one_raven]

Are there actually Calvinists around still?

 

[staples disconnected]

one_raven,

I would like to contend that both the snake and god lied.

NIV Genesis 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

DO we have have knowledge of good and evil? I know I have a system of beliefs that have been taught to me that predicate my knowledge of good and evil. Does this mean that I know good and evil? No, it means I know a condition of morality.

If we were to have spawned from adam and eve, would we not all experience the same condition of 'knowing' good and bad?

I am of the opinion that god knew what would happen- especially if we are to believe the attributes that are given to him. This casts him into a completely malicious light. But considering everything else he has done (speaking hypothetically of course) I don't find this to hard to believe.

 

[one_raven]

The simple fact that you can say, "I think God lied", is proof of self-determination in itself.

 

[staples disconnected]

I'm not arguing self determination, I'm arguing the fact that if we were to gain a knowledge of good and evil from a tree (which to me is patently absurd, tomatoes though) would it not be a uniform knowledge, with no varience?

Surely the fact that we have conditional morality shows a certain contradiction to the events depicted in the bible.

 

[Raithere]

I think the NIV is a much better translation, personally. You?

Not at all. The NIV sacrificed literal translation for readability. It's like paraphrasing one of Dr. King's speeches or reading Cliffs Notes. But I'm willing to concede the point that it is dependent upon the translation.

My argument still stands that this was not a test of morality, nor a punishment for sin. Simply the consequence of rejecting God.

Then we have to consider that God is not omnipotent (couldn't save us from consequence) or question his love and concept of justice (decided that all humanity should suffer for the actions of two people).

That is RC doctrine, and like much of RC doctrine, not necessarily Biblically sound or valid.

Whose is? And are you saying that God is not omniscient?

The Tanach does not have "section titles". "The Fall of Man" is stictly a Christian thing. As far as I understand it, the Jews do not see this act as an act of sin or something to be condemned.

I believe that's correct.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

NIV Genesis 3:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
:bugeye:

What if I say to someone, "Sure, you can crash at my apartment. Keep in mind, though... You must not go into the basement, for if you do, you will die."

What would they assume?
Seems reasonable to me to assume that I mean if you go into my basement, I'm going to kill you.
That is a commandment with consequences if you disobey it.

Looks to me like you're giving them a choice, yes.

But (if you took at the site I linked to), the imperative mood of verbs does not allow for a choice. You have given your friend a choice between living and dying, the same as God did.

When you command a child, "Go and clean your room now" - you are not giving them a choice between cleaning their room and not cleaning it. You can see then that commands do not give room for choice. But look at a conditional statement.

"Go and clean your room now, or you will not eat" - you are giving them a choice between eating and non eating. Maybe it's semantics, but that's what I've gathered from my knowledge of the language. Last, the definition of command is "to direct authoritatively" (MW). It may be just me, but I don't see how you can be directing authoritatively if you are giving the person a choice.

What makes them "like Gods" is the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. self-determinism entirely devoid of guidance from a higher power) COMBINED WITH immortality. By removing them from access to the Tree of Life, he deprives them of immortality.

Where does Genesis mention anything about immortality and being "like Gods"? The phrase is vague and I wouldn't ascribe anything that isn't given explicitly. You might as well say they would lose their physical body since God doesn't have a physical body.

 

[one_raven]

I'm not arguing self determination, I'm arguing the fact that if we were to gain a knowledge of good and evil from a tree (which to me is patently absurd, tomatoes though) would it not be a uniform knowledge, with no varience?

Surely the fact that we have conditional morality shows a certain contradiction to the events depicted in the bible.

Not at all.
Quite the contrary, in fact.
If, as I am putting forward, the metaphor means that eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, imparted self-determination, it would be the other way around.
For the Tree that God created to give us very specific un-adulterated rules regarding what is Good and what is Evil, then we would still be living under God's mandate.
For us to have an inherent knowledge of what God thinks is Good and Evil, we would NOT be self-determinate, we would be just as we were, following his rules.
Self-determination means the ability to decide for ourselves.

Not at all. The NIV sacrificed literal translation for readability. It's like paraphrasing one of Dr. King's speeches or reading Cliffs Notes. But I'm willing to concede the point that it is dependent upon the translation.

I can't help but wonder how much you know about the NIV, what the intention of the translators were and what the methods of translation were.
That statement is not meant to imply any ignorance on your part. You very well could know as much as I do or more about it and come to the same differing and valid opinion.
The reason I can't help but wonder, though, is because I used to say the exact same thing about it until I researched it more.
It was not a simple retelling of the KJV in a more friendly and readable tone.
Their express intention was to make a more accurate version as well as a more readable version of the original texts.
More readable simply due to the fact that it was translated into modern English.
A vast wealth of resources and wide array of knowledge of people of differing faiths went into the translation.
They used as many original sources as were available.
I suppose this is a topic for another thread, however.

Then we have to consider that God is not omnipotent (couldn't save us from consequence) or question his love and concept of justice (decided that all humanity should suffer for the actions of two people).

Only if you think mankind "suffers" as a result of this action, which is exactly what I am arguing against.
As I said, I don't think that mortality was a value judgement against man, rather this fable was a simple attempt to explain why humans are mortal.
Please explain how manking suffers as a result of this.

Whose is? And are you saying that God is not omniscient?

Hell, I don't even believe that anything resemblig Abraham's God exists, so I am not saying that God is or isn;t anything.
What I am saying is that the Bible doesn't make any explicit claims about God's omniscience, simply examples of things he does know.
Yes, the Bible does state the God has the ability to know everything you know...
NIV 1 Chronicles 28:9 "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever. 10 Consider now, for the LORD has chosen you to build a temple as a sanctuary. Be strong and do the work."
...but there is nowhere that I am aware of where it states that God is aware of everything that will happen.

I believe that's correct.

The part about the section titles, or the part about them not seeing it as a sin, rather something to praise?

Looks to me like you're giving them a choice, yes.

But (if you took at the site I linked to), the imperative mood of verbs does not allow for a choice. You have given your friend a choice between living and dying, the same as God did.

When you command a child, "Go and clean your room now" - you are not giving them a choice between cleaning their room and not cleaning it. You can see then that commands do not give room for choice. But look at a conditional statement.

"Go and clean your room now, or you will not eat" - you are giving them a choice between eating and non eating. Maybe it's semantics, but that's what I've gathered from my knowledge of the language. Last, the definition of command is "to direct authoritatively" (MW). It may be just me, but I don't see how you can be directing authoritatively if you are giving the person a choice.

Now you are really grasping at straws.
You were framing this as a choice rather than a commandment, correct?
If you live in Texas, it is mandated by the authorites that you must not murder another human being.
Now, according to your portrayal above, you have a choice, correct?
Either you do not kill, or you will BE killed.

Would the commandments mean anything if they were not backed up with God's willingness to follow through with, say... an eternity in Hell?
Without an entity's ability and implied willingness to enact consequences for actions, "authority" is meaningless.
Well, when would a commandment NOT imply a choice?
"Either you do this or you will be punished" is a threat -a commandment with consequence for not abiding.

Where does Genesis mention anything about immortality and being "like Gods"? The phrase is vague and I wouldn't ascribe anything that isn't given explicitly. You might as well say they would lose their physical body since God doesn't have a physical body.

NIV Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

I think it is a reasonably safe assumption.

 

[ellion]

disregarding all theocratic interpretations to read it as is, the story to me is simply about learning right from wrong (good and evil) through direct expereince, cause and effect.

 

[one_raven]

disregarding all theocratic interpretations to read it as is, the story to me is simply about learning right from wrong (good and evil) direct expereince, cause and effect.

Who learned right from wrong?
Adam and Eve?
If so, what did they learn was right or wrong?
If that was the point of the parable, do you mean that it was that God is right and to disobey him is wrong?

 

[ellion]

i think it is a story and should be given no more weight than that. in my opinion, it is not
a factual account of anything, if it is as some suggest a factual account of the creation of the universe and of mans ascent from animal or descent from spirit then it is an extremely poor factual account.

viewing it as a story the interpretation is a personal one and is only suggestive of certain posssibilities, nothing more.

Who learned right from wrong?

me!

Adam and Eve?

if we take the interpreation to be that having your eyes opened to know good and evil means learning right from wrong then yes, adam and eve.

If so, what did they learn was right or wrong?

good and evil. postivie and negative.

If that was the point of the parable, do you mean that it was that God is right and to disobey him is wrong?

i dont know what the intention of the author of the parable was but for me it is that adam and eve had to understand right and wrong this understanding could not be communicated it had to be expereinced. eating the fruit and the consequence, gave the expereince, they now know of good and evil

 

[one_raven]

me!

You say you learned right from wrong from the story.
What did you learn?
What is right and what is wrong (that you gleaned from the story)?

i dont know what the intention of the author of the parable was but for me it is that adam and eve had to understand right and wrong this understanding could not be communicated it had to be expereinced.

Isn't the intenion of the author the whole point, being that this is a religious book written specifically to teach?

What, then, did their experience teach them?
What does the story tell about what is right and what is wrong?
If it sats nothing, then wouldn't that make the story completely pointless?
Why would one of the most significant stories in a book of religion and morality be a pointless one?

 

[one_raven]

in my opinion, it is not a factual account of anything

I agree, by the way.

 

[ellion]

You say you learned right from wrong from the story.

nope! not from the story form the metaphorical eating of the fruit. i gained my understanding of good and evil form expereince. this understanding could not be communicated by god, parents, teachers, gurus, prophets or the babylon.

i taste the fruit to know its flavour.

to me the story has symbolized the development of this knowledge in way which considers and confirms the individuals expereince.

What did you learn?
What is right and what is wrong (that you gleaned from the story)?

as said above the story is a confirmation of expereince, the knowledge can not be communicated not spoken and not written.

Isn't the intenion of the author the whole point, being that this is a religious book written specifically to teach?

how can we know what the intention of the author was, how can we know it was written to teach?

What, then, did their experience teach them?

it is a parable. the point is that the expereince is the learning. the flavour cannot be known with out tasting the fruit. does there need to be some proverb or piece of infromation to digest in order that learning take place?

What does the story tell about what is right and what is wrong?

that it has to be known directly by the individual, that it is not an object, event or phenomena that can be shown to others.

If it sats nothing, then wouldn't that make the story completely pointless?

if it says nothing it would be pointless. if it seems to say nothing it might actuallly be saying something not comprehended.

 

[one_raven]

i taste the fruit to know its flavour.

I get your point.
The eating of the fruit is symbolic of experience itself.
I can't say I agree, but I understand where you are coming from.

how can we know what the intention of the author was, how can we know it was written to teach?

We can't, but I thoroughly enjoy examining the possibilities.

if it says nothing it would be pointless. if it seems to say nothing it might actuallly be saying something not comprehended.

Which is the point of examination and discussion, in my opinion.

 

[ellion]

The eating of the fruit is symbolic of experience itself.
I can't say I agree, but I understand where you are coming from.

if you dont agree, then would i be right in thinking you have your own interpretation of the story? what does the story symbolize for you?