Why was the forbidden tree in the garden?

[Brian_Millar]

I’m just trying to stay out of the debate here, Buffalo want’s me invovled with it, I’m just trying to explain why I don’t want to go that route. Can I remain on the side lines and watch you guys tear each other apart, seeing your ideal leans too far to the left, and perhaps in some cases, his too far to the right. I can discern the truth from bias on my own without needing to make a comment on it. I also know full well, the real authority here is not pat or buffalo, it’s Christ and in these times, it’s the churches authority that is the final word, not someone’s interpretation of it. What I posted was in general, not necessarily directed at one person specifically, but when I see two people claiming the same faith in the same Church, yet are opposed, it raises a red flag, either one of you are wrong, or both, or neither and we are looking at the same coin read in a different way.

Here is something I’ll share with you guys that might help clear things up. The word of God is a living word, living as in it holds more meaning then just want we see on the surface, that it means something different to each person based upon their circumstance and their ability to interpret. It also means different things during different times of our lives. When I read scripture, I take note of the subtle wordings, in many cases, they make a great deal of difference in what is actually meant, the average reader will overlook these elements and not get the full story and bigger picture. The word of God is very condensed, and we can extrapolate much more from it if we slow down and look more closely at what is written.

I still stay balanced in my perspective, I still say, it’s literal and figurative at the same time, buffalo backed up my stance here, you should as well, for it is in line with the Catholic Church, if you can, I’ll bet both of you guys can find some common ground here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Now let’s work on the talking snake idea.

We know from Scripture that Jesus cast out demons from humans. Today, excorcists cast out demons from those afflicted. The demons are the devil who overtakes a life form.

So, is it so ridiculous and naive to think the devil could not have possessed a serpent? Hardly.

Serpents do not have the anatomical wherewithal for engaging in speech - & whatever else possession may do, I don’t think it causes changes to the anatomy of the subject.​

**Besides, the narrative presupposes that the first humans spoke Hebrew. So the serpent must have spoken Hebrew - but it is not able to. **

**In any case, Hebrew is far from being the oldest Semitic language: the first humans would be much plausible as speakers of Sumerian (a non-Semitic language BTW) - but even that does not take us back far beyond 4,000 BC or so. **

 

[Brian_Millar]

At the time, man was able to understand the language of the animals. Have you ever had a pet, take note, they speak to us in their own ways as well, many of them even mimick what we humans consider as body language in order to get their point accross. I know when I get up in the morning, I’ll have my cats all bug me to get fed and they are relentless until I fill their bowl.

I think with this particular case with the serpent, it is more telepathic then vocal. There are documented case studies showing pet’s being fully aware their masters are in route to their home, they clearly show signs of some type of telepathic connection here and should be noted in this case.

Also, as per the previous post I made, I have an exercise for both opposing parties here, this is to show that the church doesn’t know aboslutely everything, that they too are still learning even to this day.

We take note how Christ mentions that we should pray for our enemy’s, that we should turn the other cheek. I want both of you guys to tell me what the churches official stance is upon this, what it’s really teaching, and I’ll finish it by filling in the rest of the gaps for you guys, just so you know that it is quite possible to miss the meanings of what Christ taught if we are to rely only upon the church, waiting for it’s official decree and it’s final authority. This is not to undermind it, but to show as an example, why I still am learning and as well should be and we should not get trapped in absolutes.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Still waiting on a response to my question here, I want to follow up with what the church deems is the most dangerous sin as well. I have an answer here that you might find interesting and it’s something we all should be aware of. I can debate with you two all night long, just be prepared to learn something in the process, just as I have from you already.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A fact that I find very disappointing . It’s name-calling to label it fundamentalist.

That is its correct name, nonetheless.​

**The ECFs were not Fundamentalists - they were not in the same position as the Popes of the 20th century up to 1960 or so. The ECFs’ position on Scripture did not involve rejecting the positions made possible by the rediscovery of antiquity in the last 200 or so years - the Fundamentalist position, does. The Fundamentalist is in the position of a man to whom better astronomy than that of Ptolemy is available, who nonetheless ignores Copernicus & his successors, & holds to Ptolemy as though Copernicus & Co. had never been. The Fathers knew only Ptolemy, & not Copernicus - the Fundamentalist’s adhesion to Ptolemy involves rejecting Copernicus. So his position is only outwardly that of the Fathers; in reality, it is very different. **

The Early Church Fathers were strong proponents of the perspective that the Bible is exactly accurate in all things.

All of us are limited by the limitations in what we know. The Bible looked “exactly accurate” either because it could not be verified, or because it could be allegorised, or in other ways: there were ways in which it could be read that “saved the appearances” of the belief in its complete lack of error. But salvaging belief in its inerrancy can take place without reading it as it is meant to be read: if a list of place-names in Numbers is allegorised, it reains inerrant at the price of having been misread. The modern doctrine of total inerrancy is based on that kind of misreading. Unless the Bible can be inerrant without that kind of distortion, & others, the doctrine cannot be true. As Christian faith is fundamentally in Christ & not in the Bible, the inadequacies of the Bible don’t matter - it is adequate for its purpose. It does not need to be perfect.​

St. Jerome, Justin the Martyr, Augustine and many others declared this openly. Several popes in the 19th century described it precisely, and Vatican I espoused inerrancy without the Vatican II possible qualification. The suggestion that inerrancy is limited to faith and morals in the Bible is not found anywhere in Church tradition prior to Vatican II, and even in Vatican II it is not explicitly stated. This perspective deviates from the tradition of the Early Church Fathers, the whole of Catholic tradition up to the 20th century, and the words of Jesus himself, who declared that it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one letter to drop out of the law, and claimed that no “jot nor tittle” can fail. Not in the smallest way is it inaccurate- as Iranaeus put it, the scripture is “perfect,” and he boldly claimed that if he perceived any error in it, he would see that the supposed error was due only to an imperfection of his own understanding, rather than to an imperfection in what was written. The Early Church Fathers referred to the Bible as “God’s book,” and referred to the Holy Spirit as its author.

**We too are God’s creations - but how many of us claim that it follows we are perfect ? It does not at all follow that because X is from God, X must have the perfection or inerrancy or whatnot of God. To ascribe to the Bible perfections one can see very clearly it lacks, is to lie to oneself; & that is wrong **​

Fundamentalists drew their perceptions on scriptural inerrancy from the leaders of the Reformation, and those early leaders (Calvin, Luther and others) drew their view from Catholic theology that had always existed.

It is very inappropriate to name-call this perspective “fundamentalist,” for this was the Catholic position all the way up to the mid-20th century. The view that the Bible is only perfect in faith and morals is not a deeper exposition of what the Early Church Fathers meant- it is a clear deviation from what they believed. And it’s a deviation from the whole history of Church perspectives. An unjustified deviation as well, I might add, for repeatedly scholars have attacked the historicity of Biblical passages only to find their accusations defeated. The existence of the Hittite civilization, for instance, was not proven by archaeologists and used to be a focus for scientific sneering at the Bible. Christians were under pressure to change their beliefs, because the Hittites weren’t shown to exist. Now reams of information are available about the Hittites, and those accusations have failed.

**Many errors have indeed been resolved - no one is denying that: but this does not resolve the many discrepancies in the gospels. To solve some problems, is not solving all. **​

Many accusations once were made about Israelite history, challenging its reliability, but now a great deal of that history has been backed by subsequent study, especially when the Old Testament documents are compared to Assyrian records. There are precise parallels. It’s only in the time periods before David that there are substantial difficulties still in corroborating the historical documents.

I have a great deal of trouble stomaching the way many Catholics are leaning away from the bold faith in Biblical inerrancy held by the Early Church and held firmly throughout all Catholic history up to the 20th century. I respect their choice, some, because I can see how Vatican II could be seen as opening the doors for this perspective. And even though it was only a pastoral council, its words still very rightfully make a big difference in the way Catholics think. I’m very disappointed that they weren’t more clear in backing the traditional Catholic view.

 

[patg]

…but when I see two people claiming the same faith in the same Church, yet are opposed, it raises a red flag, either one of you are wrong, or both, or neither and we are looking at the same coin read in a different way.

That’s why I was trying so hard to emphasize that the Church does not have a dogmatice statement on the historicity of this story - we are free to disagree with neither being officially “wrong” (even though we are pretty sure the other of us is).

Here is something I’ll share with you guys that might help clear things up. The word of God is a living word, living as in it holds more meaning then just want we see on the surface, that it means something different to each person based upon their circumstance and their ability to interpret. It also means different things during different times of our lives. When I read scripture, I take note of the subtle wordings, in many cases, they make a great deal of difference in what is actually meant, the average reader will overlook these elements and not get the full story and bigger picture. The word of God is very condensed, and we can extrapolate much more from it if we slow down and look more closely at what is written.

I can agree with that. The interpretations change for individuals and the Church as a whole - the growth in knowledge of the world and history affects how we view the bible as well as everything else. Why else would we have a pontifical biblical commission and dogmatic statements from recent popes nearly redefining biblical exegesis? There was no acceptable form of “historical critical thinking” or literary form analysis before a couple of the more recent papal documents.

 

[AndyF]

Andy, I don’t follow you here, do you care to elaborate? I would not dare to question God’s judgement in this matter or any other matter for that fact.

We are discussing the reasoning, not opinionating anyone. It is what every being does with the reasoning that defines the measure of accountability by it’s application.

As far as my right to query all aspects of my creation? While hell exists and is designed for me you can bet your boots I will use any technicality and expose any untruth that exists and every being is scrutinized, that is a morally just expectation in any upright system. If there a conflict of interest by design that is not your or my problem.I will as it were go out kicking and screaming and expose every truth on the way, and the Father would be pleased.

The reasoning why all the angels were not stigmatized with original sin is that they are all a unique species. So far the species exemption factors in as a positive in their case.So be it.

Moving on to humans where propagation is a reality by design, and not through their own fault, one would think the application of the species rule would even be more pressing for their case. A deity who truly loves like a father would for his children would leap at any opportunity to apply any rule in their favor.

Not so. Eve’s progeny gets stigmatized even though the species rule applied at the outset would save her and her progeny.

The upshot of this case is that in reality humans are being faulted BECAUSE they can probigate. This is so because all other factors in both the sinning case of angels and man are the same.

So yes, I think this is a prime example of double standards.

Andy

 

[buffalo]

Serpents do not have the anatomical wherewithal for engaging in speech - & whatever else possession may do, I don’t think it causes changes to the anatomy of the subject.​

**Besides, the narrative presupposes that the first humans spoke Hebrew. So the serpent must have spoken Hebrew - but it is not able to. **

**In any case, Hebrew is far from being the oldest Semitic language: the first humans would be much plausible as speakers of Sumerian (a non-Semitic language BTW) - but even that does not take us back far beyond 4,000 BC or so. **

The issue that I exposed is that you cannot/will not believe that God could make a serpent talk.

Simply answer the question - could He have made a serpent talk?

 

[fhansen]

Still waiting on a response to my question here, I want to follow up with what the church deems is the most dangerous sin as well. I have an answer here that you might find interesting and it’s something we all should be aware of. I can debate with you two all night long, just be prepared to learn something in the process, just as I have from you already.

Brian, why don’t you go ahead and lay it out for us?

And HAPPY MOTHERS’ DAY to Eve and all Moms descended from her together with Mary, the Blessed Virgin Mother of us all!

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Lurkers - yes that means you - what do you think of patg’s postings?

OK, well, since you asked.

Patg has made a good case. It’s of course impossible to prove any of it strictly speaking - to do that we would have to be able to interview the author of Genesis as to exactly what he meant. But the same difficulty applies to the “traditional” interpretation - and no real argument has been given for this except for the fact that this is what was traditionally believed - it just plain doesn’t make sense, as patg points out.

We’ve gone away from traditionalist interpretations on other matters. Very few believe today in a literal six-day creation. Very few believe in an immobile earth at the center of the universe. Therefore it’s not a stretch to see that traditionalist interpretations on other matters such as this may be open to development. Now much of the opposition is not really based on this or that intepretation of Genesis per se, but is based on the authority of the Church coming under question - it supported a traditionalist interpretation for a long time, and only very recently has this changed to allow for more “progressive” opinions. But if this is what biblical scholarship, science, and other disciplines show to be the truth then this is just too bad for that authority - under pain of the Church’s hierarchy becoming an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” - type enterprise.

It wouldn’t even surprise me to move away from a literal Adam and Eve. There’s simply no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of two in the human species and much evidence the founder population would have to be much larger to account for the genetic diversity present in the human species. And there are other issues. Just imagine no original sin, Adam and Eve propagate and the human race begins to spread throughout the earth. The population growth, without infant mortality, disease, etc., would be absolutely explosive. Would there be other trees of life besides the one in the Garden? And anyway, earth’s capacity to support this population would be limited. And we would be back to square one as far as talking about original sin, for there would be scarcity of resources on the planet.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The issue that I exposed is that you cannot/will not believe that God could make a serpent talk.

Simply answer the question - could He have made a serpent talk?

**“God can” bring it about that Eve was tempted by one of the dragons in Tolkien, or that Genesis is inspired translation, from the Elvish, of the authentic records of the earliest days of creation But who believes any of that to be what in fact “God did” ? **​

The trouble with using arguments from “what God can do” to establish the historicity of items in the Bible, is that there is no way, in your method, of testing whether He did what He is said to have done. Arguments from omnipotence allow no place for testing by plausibility.

**It is impossible, for that reason, to deny the historicity of the Silmarillion - God can always have brought matters about so as to ensure that the Sil is historical. If it was, that would explain a great deal - even though all the explanations would be pseudo-explanations: as are explanations which require Adam & Eve to be real people. (I see that you don’t address the problems in that supposition that I mentioned. ) **

**It is this uselessness of the argument from omnipotence that makes arguments over evolution so sterile - if “God can” produce false appearances of age without our having any way of knowing he has done so, the world could be any age at all, & none of us would be any the wiser. **

God could have caused the human race to be descended from dragons - that doesn’t mean He did.

**That’s why I can’t answer your question - sorry **

 

[buffalo]

"God can" bring it about that Eve was tempted by one of the dragons in Tolkien, or that Genesis is inspired translation, from the Elvish, of the authentic records of the earliest days of creation But who believes any of that to be what in fact “God did” ?​

The trouble with using arguments from “what God can do” to establish the historicity of items in the Bible, is that there is no way, in your method, of testing whether He did what He is said to have done. Arguments from omnipotence allow no place for testing by plausibility.

**It is impossible, for that reason, to deny the historicity of the Silmarillion - God can always have brought matters about so as to ensure that the Sil is historical. If it was, that would explain a great deal - even though all the explanations would be pseudo-explanations: as are explanations which require Adam & Eve to be real people. (I see that you don’t address the problems in that supposition that I mentioned. ) **

**It is this uselessness of the argument from omnipotence that makes arguments over evolution so sterile - if “God can” produce false appearances of age without our having any way of knowing he has done so, the world could be any age at all, & none of us would be any the wiser. **

God could have caused the human race to be descended from dragons - that doesn’t mean He did.

**That’s why I can’t answer your question - sorry **

It was a yes or no question and answered with sarcasm and a weak admission of God’s power.

Right - the question is what did He do, not what He could do.

It is most difficult as we only have the account.

When we drill down the question is who actually wrote the account?

 

[Brian_Millar]

Brian, why don’t you go ahead and lay it out for us?

And HAPPY MOTHERS’ DAY to Eve and all Moms descended from her together with Mary, the Blessed Virgin Mother of us all!

Well, since neither side want’s to comment on this challenge, it looks like I have to show you what I mean and what the church has yet to learn, but it will.

The most dangerous sin is pride, people deceive themselves due to their pride, they refuse to listen to instruction, thinking they know it all due to their pride. They struggle with their faith and relationship with God, cutting themselves off from him in the process because they think they are in charge, that they know better, that they are not in error and that they are right, again it’s all pride talking here. Even thought she knew better and ate of the tree, her pride being what led her to take that action, her pride overrode God’s command not to eat of it. This sin is seemingly subtle, innocent, and doesn’t seem that severe and it infiltrates even the best of us, twisting the truth and giving us a false sense of security.

The other side of that coin is just as bad, having no pride at all, you are self loathing, you are again, trapped in it’s misguided ways. You are still twisting the truth against yourself, and you are assured that since you have humbled yourself to this point, that you must be in alignment with God, for he wants us to be humble, but it is quite possible to take it too far. How can you love him, or your brother for that matter and hate yourself.

Most people lean too far one way or the other, this is man’s dilema that he has struggled with from the beginning. It is what gets in the way of our faith and our well being, it also prevents us from taking a very hard look at ourselves and defining exactly who we are and where we stand with God. It is also rampant these days, with all of our modern understandings and technology, we think we know more then what we actually do and we tend not to keep each other in check, propaginating it further.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Part two of this was explaining what was actually meant by turning the other cheek, by praying for your enemy.

We look to the original law, where it defines an eye for an eye, place it in the context of the time it was written, it was necessary for the Jews to be like the world, their population could not bear the new law, for if they embraced it, they would be wiped off of the face of the planet. Times were more brutal then, it was necessary for them to fight back in the way the world had it ordered and aligned with. This was a miserable law, yet was necessary only for that time, the new one, pray for your enemy came afterwards which redefined the nature the Jews were supposed to follow.

You ask yourself, if your enemy is killing off your family, isn’t retialiation in order? This is a worldy perspective, one that’s short sighted and not looking into the future and it’s impact. Does retialation bring back a lost loved one, does it repair an injury, does it make things even? No, on all accounts, in fact, just the opposite, it causes the other side to retialiate further. At the end of any war, there never are any winners, only losers.

So, Jesus throws out the eye for an eye mentality, knowing full well that this clearly is not working, it never really did but was necessary at the time to have in place, for the people were not ready for anything more. We pray for our enemies, we turn the other cheek. No matter how hard they try, they take note, our faith remains in tact, that we must have something of great value to stand by it in spite of what the world is trying to do against it. It took a great deal of hero’s in the day’s of old to be martred, tortured, condemned, and made public display to their suffering. The enemy, in particular the Roman empire finally realized their shame, they finally took note as to the fact, we were not moving, that we could not be swayed no matter how hard they tried, and finally gave in, in a way, the saying goes, if you can’t beat them, might as well join them. I can take this into my own life, having faced bullies and oppressors, yet in the end, they too came around, became allies, and life not only went on in a positive way, that same bully that before would be against me, now stuck up for me, that same bully also felt remorse for what they did to me in the first place, that same bully became a different person, he repented.

This teaching, this new law also empowers us, it places us above the context of worldy understandings, we rise above, a more evolved creation and in the case where the oppressors have hardened their hearts to the point of no turning back, we rely upon God for vengance, not ourselves, and he is mighty in his ways, God help anybody that stands in his way, so we pray for our enemy, there has been times where I prayed to God to not show his full wrath on my enemy, to ease up, knowing they know not what they are truely doing, they aren’t understanding of his ways, to allow them a path of enlightenment over destruction. We turn the other cheek because we are a tough bunch, we can handle it, it’s in a way telling them, bring it on, we can take it, here is the other side, do you want to smite me there too? It’s not going to change us, their ways are not going to drag us down to their level, we are above all of that, for we have the Lord our God with us, the enemy does not, they can bruise the flesh, but they cannot touch the soul. Turning the other cheek also means to look away from the darkness, to remain focused upon the light and not let the dark influence our thoughts. Another saying, garbage in, garbage out, and in this case, if your thoughts are always focused upon negative elements, that is what you become, another saying, that which you hate, controls you, have you seen people where all of their energies are focused upon what is wrong, they don’t stop to think about what is right, they in fact, create more of what is wrong because they focus is upon it exclusively.

 

[Brian_Millar]

What happens when we ignore these new laws and embrace the old ones. Remember the crusades? That didn’t go over that well did it, we gained no new ground, the muslems were not halted, in fact, they were strengthened because they had a clear foe, the Christians and everybody that was against the christians were their allies, ie. an enemy of my enemy is my friend. If we were to have embraced the new law, they likely would have fizzled out of existance, that, or the entire world would have united against them and opposed their brutal ways, again, causing that religion to fizzle out and turned it into a side note in history. The church obviously was still learning these basic rules, for it was not, it would not have made the mistake it did approving the crusades in the first place.

What happens when the entire world embraces either law, well, we currently see what is happening with the eye for en eye side, constant never ending war, each side trying to even out the injustice the other side has caused. No clear way of defining things are in check, so it cannot end. Yet with the new law, if the entire world were to embrace it, there would be no enemy to pray for, for there would be no enemy in existance, they would all become allies in the process. Imagine what we as a race could do, we no longer spend time, money and resources on battle, we place our resources onto the betterment of mankind. There would be no famine, sickness, or any of the problems we have always faced throughout history because our efforts would be entirely upon a constructive basis, our technology would be wonderous, much, much more advanced then what we currently experience. The model would be closer to the Greeks, at least in regards to their focus being upon more constructive areas, and instead of revearing the warriors, we would revear the peace makers.

There was a clear logic in what Christ taught, the question is, how long are we going to ignore these new laws. I’ve explained the reason he layed them down, the church should have addressed this long ago, but it’s still learning when it comes down to it. There are saints and leaders that have shown how this works, but too few of them get enough exposure, and for the most part, are simply written off as only being gentle souls, nothing more.

 

[nablaise]

Hmm this is a nice thread.

This is what I have come to conclude about the allegory of Genesis:

I think the Garden is the human heart. Theologians like Scott Hahn also think it is the sanctuary, the holy of holies.

The trees are all things all emotions we can have as we want.
The tree in the middle of the Garden; the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the ‘SELF’.

The commandment not to eat of it was ‘don’t be selfish’.

Now, we may say: but they were two persons so were there two trees? No.
Because they were created in the image of God. They were many persons but ONE HEART. The love which springs from God was supposed to keep this unity.

So the purpose of this tree was to be sacrificed. Self-sacrifice. It is only good for sacrifice. While other trees are meant to be eaten, this one is to be sacrificed.

The serpent is the evil spirit. It attacked this unity of theirs and provoqued selfishness which divided them.

In order to see what happened we can see what Jesus did to reverse it. Jesus also went into the Garden was tempted, but refused to eat of the tree but choose to be selfless and offered himself.
By reading the story of the Garden of Gatsemani, we can see what a battle Jesus was having with the serpent, sweting blood, etc…

I think this illustrate what Adam would have done in one way or an other.

Sometimes I think that the ‘flesh’ was not really meant by God to be our bodies in the beginning. I think it came as a result of sin even though Genesis speaks of the fall after the creation of Eve.

I think the fall happened when Adam was naming the animals. And actually what God did when he separated Eve from Adam was actually the act of mercy mentioned in Genesis 3 when God clothed them with ‘garments of skins’. I think originally before sin, Man as united before the fall, Man: male and female united, was made of ‘dust’ not of flesh.

I have a wild idea that actually Adam may have committed the first act of idoratry towards the animals he was naming. He might have incarnated(?) himself into some ‘chempanzie like’ animals, and found himself ‘in the deap sleep’/dead in sin.
I mean, becoming part of the animal word may be a fall.

I think those who refuse evolution have a point. Man was not made out of animal but out of ‘dust’. But they miss an other point. That Man was later clothed with animal skins. And this to me is the link. I think Man fell from a higher place into an animal kingdom.

Instead of looking up to God, he looked down to the animals he was naming and worshiped them.

I have a feeling that this is why animals were always sacrificed. God was trying to break human inclinations towards animal worship by having man kill them. So Abel sacrifice was pleasing to God because he was making effort to break the bonds. While Cain didn’t care about working for his betterment. So Cain looking at his Brother’s success, he became jealous and killed him.

God bless

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It was a yes or no question and answered with sarcasm and a weak admission of God’s power.

Right - the question is what did He do, not what He could do.

It is most difficult as we only have the account.

When we drill down the question is who actually wrote the account?

I wasn’t being sarcastic, only drawing an analogy between two pieces of non-historical writing so as to illustrate a point. I’m sorry you seem not to have got it . As the passage is about events that never took place, questions about God’s ability to make snakes talk are about what did not occur. An imaginary event is imaginary whether it be related in the Bible, or, in a work no-one doubts is a work of imagination. As you say, “the question is what did He do, not what He could do” - though both need to be asked, not just the first. **I’m very sorry you thought I was being sarcastic **​

What is not imaginary - sad to say - is sin. One can perfectly well have a truth-telling fiction: Jesus used them constantly. This passage is not a parable, but neither is it an historical narrative: it too is a truth-telling fiction.

**As to the account: Genesis 3 is the work of both the Jahwistic editor & the Priestly editor, with further revision by R, the Redactor. **

 

[buffalo]

**As to the account: Genesis 3 is the work of both the Jahwistic editor & the Priestly editor, with further revision by R, the Redactor. **

I am not convinced.

 

[Spirithound]

What good purpose did it serve at all? Why did God make it so? Why did he allow the serpent to exist in Eden? Why didn’t he tell Adam and Eve exactly what was going to happen in detail if they did not obey his command not to eat of it? Why did he not warn them of the lie Eve was going to be told from the serpent about it? What would have happened if Adam refused to eat of it even after Eve insisted he do so?

Our God is a God of Love. Everything He does is to express His Love. In allowing us the opportunity to reject Him, we can then show Him love.
We’re in the Philosophy forum, so let’s put a philosophical spin on this Have you ever read Plato’s “Timaeus” ? The Demiurge, which is the god of that story, is a god of necessity. If he does something, it is because it was deemed necessary to do so. Contrast with our God, who didn’t have to do anything, but did it anyways, as an act of Love.

 

[Spirithound]

I don’t claim to know the mind of God but I do know that if I took my child, put them in the presence of an almost irresistible temptation knowing that they would succumb to it and then punished them and all their descendants for all eternity I wouldn’t exactly be nominated for father of the year.

But the human race has not been punished for all eternity. God Himself came to earth to die for us!