What if Eve had not eaten the apple?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
If Eve had not eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we would be happy but stupid.
Marlin,
The term “soul” originates from Greek and means air or breath. The earliest ideas about a soul came from the observation that when someone is dead they do not breath so it was concluded that the breath was the soul and caused life. This myth had major influences on biblical and later writings and we see many references to the “breath of life” etc. In Genesis we see here one of the earliest references where Adam’s soul is created by God breathing into him. This concept also fed fears of evil spirits that could be breathed in and hence the cause of most illnesses and diseases. Strange that they weren’t too far wrong had they known anything about viral and bacterial infections.
The rest of your post is interesting and imaginative, but just more rationalization.
Interesting concept. Nonsense though as far as the bible is concerned. Genesis 2:7 says - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The term “soul” originates from Greek and means air or breath. The earliest ideas about a soul came from the observation that when someone is dead they do not breath so it was concluded that the breath was the soul and caused life. This myth had major influences on biblical and later writings and we see many references to the “breath of life” etc. In Genesis we see here one of the earliest references where Adam’s soul is created by God breathing into him. This concept also fed fears of evil spirits that could be breathed in and hence the cause of most illnesses and diseases. Strange that they weren’t too far wrong had they known anything about viral and bacterial infections.
The rest of your post is interesting and imaginative, but just more rationalization.
So do you agree then that God is not omnipotent since here you are claiming there are basic things he cannot do?
Cris said:
There are indeed things God cannot do, such as the old "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it?" God also cannot save an unrepentant sinner.
I personally don't claim to know all of God's ways, so I'm not sure when I say He can only do things one way. But it is my belief that the way things are, are the way things just about have to be in order for God's great Plan of Salvation for His children to work correctly.
Marlin,
And I, the Lord God, formed man from the adust• of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the bbreath of life; and cman became a living dsoul•, the efirst• flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.
Note the highlighted part. I would read this to say he created souls according to his design. In which case why did he create them so they would disobey him?
This assertion seems to conflict with your book of Moses 3:7
And I, the Lord God, formed man from the adust• of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the bbreath of life; and cman became a living dsoul•, the efirst• flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.
Note the highlighted part. I would read this to say he created souls according to his design. In which case why did he create them so they would disobey him?
Cris said:
He gives us our free agency. Yes, our souls (that is, our bodies and spirits) were created by God, but our intelligences were not. We already had our tendencies and inclinations to disobey and sin in us already when He gave us our spirit bodies in the "pre-existence."
Marlin,
Christianity claims that Jesus has always existed and that salvation through Jesus was always God's plan yet the OT says none of that. This is the mormon attempt to rewrite OT texts to make them fit with current mythology.
I'm not sure what I find the most amusing - these Mormon imaginative writings or the regular apologetics who attempt to rationalize biblical scripts without re-writing. The latter is certainly more subtle and far more twisted. The Mormon approach is more like saying to God - sorry you made a lot of mistakes in your first edition so we need this revision from you to clear things up.
Great stuff.
Thanks. Useful. I like this. It is written with the power of hindsight, a power no one has. Many references I noted where additions were added and things like "only begotten who was here from the beginning". These are all wonderful attempts to rationalize the inconsistencies between the OT and the myths of Christianity.
Christianity claims that Jesus has always existed and that salvation through Jesus was always God's plan yet the OT says none of that. This is the mormon attempt to rewrite OT texts to make them fit with current mythology.
I'm not sure what I find the most amusing - these Mormon imaginative writings or the regular apologetics who attempt to rationalize biblical scripts without re-writing. The latter is certainly more subtle and far more twisted. The Mormon approach is more like saying to God - sorry you made a lot of mistakes in your first edition so we need this revision from you to clear things up.
Great stuff.
Marlin,
This sounds like an incredible scretch to avoid admitting that the bible says God created man's body and soul and the basis for Mormonism has just been destroyed in this thread.
So from this I infer you want to introduce "triality" as opposed to "duality". The regular concept is that humans have both a physical body and an immaterial soul - that is duality. Now you seem to be saying that "intelligence" is a third factor, is that correct?
This sounds like an incredible scretch to avoid admitting that the bible says God created man's body and soul and the basis for Mormonism has just been destroyed in this thread.
Cris said:
As far as I know. The scriptures, including the LDS ones, aren't too clear on the concept of "intelligences," so we are kind of awaiting new revelation to clear up the matter for us. I can't really say with authority that intelligences are the "third factor" or "triality." That is my belief, though.
No, you can't destroy Truth, although it can be obscured, hidden, or simply unknown. We simply don't know enough about intelligences or the way spirits are created to understand the process fully. But thanks for trying to destroy my religion...
Hapsburg,
Whether A&E existed or not is essentially irrelevant to the discussion.
I think you've missed the point of the thread. This is a debate of a hypothetical scenario within Christian mythology. It attempts to explore a path I'm sure most Christains will not have considered. Hopefully it should further highlight the lack of crediblity of these myths.
Whether A&E existed or not is essentially irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote Marlin:
"The scriptures, including the LDS ones, aren't too clear on the concept of "intelligences," so we are kind of awaiting new revelation to clear up the matter for us. I can't really say with authority that intelligences are the "third factor" or "triality." That is my belief, though."
"No, you can't destroy Truth, although it can be obscured, hidden, or simply unknown."
* Admitting that you have "belief" without understanding the full story, begs the question: Why does your god obscure, hide and make the truth unknowable? Even from the believers?
Further to that what then would you consider "the truth"?
"The scriptures, including the LDS ones, aren't too clear on the concept of "intelligences," so we are kind of awaiting new revelation to clear up the matter for us. I can't really say with authority that intelligences are the "third factor" or "triality." That is my belief, though."
"No, you can't destroy Truth, although it can be obscured, hidden, or simply unknown."
* Admitting that you have "belief" without understanding the full story, begs the question: Why does your god obscure, hide and make the truth unknowable? Even from the believers?
Further to that what then would you consider "the truth"?
You only have to look at how people have tried to describe heaven or paradise, since that is what Eden was (or at least represented): Heaven on earth, or as close to heaven as God intended it to be. Life might have been pretty much as we can imagine it, but without sin (although I don't think we can really imagine that), and things would have been as God had declared them upon their creation: "good". The Hebrew word shalom referred to such an existence, and expressions like "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them..." (Is. 11:6-9) is typical of describing it.Cris said:
I think you have rightly observed that the command to be fruitful and multiply was given before there was any sin. In fact, just after man's creation God tells him what his task would be on earth (Gen. 1:28):
"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
You imagine that it would become boring after a time, but why? Man's stewardship over the earth might have progressed differently without sin, but why do you assume it wouldn't have progressed at all? You mention mod-cons like cars and TV. A few hundred years ago, a content person might have mentioned some other things, and I'm almost certain that a few hundred years into the future people will hardly mention any of these things. That's because it isn't these things by themselves that make life worth living. That's the lie of materialism. I would even say boredom is a luxury that people without radios, TVs and cars don't get to consider. But for the rest, Adam certainly didn't lack any creativity or had any skills that required sin to operate. If he could obey his directives better by inventing pulleys and farming implements, nothing stopped him. And because he was doing exactly what he was created to do, in the spirit it was meant to be done, he would have been content and fulfilled. Boredom, discontentment and inconvenience are all indications that you're not operating at your full potential. That's why possessions and luxuries have little to do with it, and will only emphasize that realization when they don't satisfy it.And lastly, that overpopulation would have become a problem in paradise is far from certain. The commandment, "fill the earth," would have been satisfied when earth had been filled - it can't apply indefinitely, since "the earth" isn't indefinite. Overpopulation has really become a problem only with industrialization, where people move into cities and compete for resources in a limited area. In the words of wikipedia: "Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive." So the problem is not the physical amount of people in the first place, but how they are able to live together and how resources are distributed among them. Wikipedia again: "The world's current agricultural production, if it were distributed evenly, would be sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today." And that's even after the fall. (See also the issues raised by Overpopulation.org under the link "Sustainability and Overconsumption".)
Finally, we have to consider that without sin, people would have lived in direct relationship with God. They would never be without hope or recourse. One Biblical example of such a person is Enoch, who was simply taken up into heaven without experiencing death (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5). And would heaven ever become overpopulated? I think the transition from earth to heaven would have been natural, seamless and without any trauma. But with sin, people have inherited generations of accumulated ignorance, and lost the certainty of (not to mention contentment with) truth.
Last edited:
stretched said:
It is mostly men who obscure, hide and make the truth unknowable, not God. Look at the Great Apostasy, for example. Men decided that they didn't want to follow the Jesus of the Bible, but instead embrace the god of the philosophers. In so doing, they obscured the truth by their actions. God restored this truth through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early 1800s.
It's true that there is hidden truth, though. God, for His own purposes, does keep certain doctrines sacred so that they will not get trampled like the fabled "pearls before swine." But the faithful and righteous are allowed to know many hidden truths through personal revelation. If you want to know these truths as well, you have to become righteous (if you aren't already righteous) and embrace the basic doctrines of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Last edited:
If Eve hadn't eaten the fruit when she did, she would have ate it later. If not her then Adam.
It was pre-requisite to understanding their procreative power. They didn't understand their bodies had the potential to make children, because prior to consenting to Satan's invitation, they themselves were innocent as children.
It was pre-requisite to understanding their procreative power. They didn't understand their bodies had the potential to make children, because prior to consenting to Satan's invitation, they themselves were innocent as children.
Last edited:
Trilairian
Registered Senior Member
Since it was a myth what does it matter? Also, even in the myth there was no apple.Cris said: