The Deception Process
- Serpent twisted God’s words – compare 3:1 with 2:16
- Woman adds to God’s words – compare 3:2 with 2:17
- Serpent changes the meaning of God’s words to plant a seed of doubt in the humans – v. 4
- Serpent manipulates a half-truth and offers humans an opportunity to elevate themselves – v. 5
- Eve adds her own selfish motives and Adam complies without questioning – v. 6
animefanatic777 (post: 1433955) wrote: God decided to give us Free - Will. A gift in His eyes and to some of ours, yet we use it as if it was a curse.(I don't think that was worded right...) Anyway, on topic, I don't think it was a GOOD thing that Eve sinned, and then Adam and the likes. The events of Eden weren't GOOD. But they weren't all bad either, I mean, we can learn from there mistakes.
Ante Bellum (post: 1433934) wrote:I think God knew that it was going to happen, and even meant for it to happen. It might just be the way I view Earth, as sort of a "testing ground" to determine where we go afterward.
goldenspines wrote:Its only stealing if you don't get caught.
" wrote:If humans did not know the difference between good and evil, how can Adam and Eve's disobedience of God be sin?
Pascal (post: 1434061) wrote:Now that is a fascinating little point. Or likewise, how could they know that "death" was bad. They didn't know what "death" even was. To them, it was nothing more then a word, one that couldn't be inherently bad because they did not know evil - it would be the same as any other aspect of their lives.
But it's not just death, in Gen 2:17 God says that the punishment for eating off the tree is that Adam will surely die. He doesn't mention the additional punishments listed later on. What was that for and was there some kind of unmentioned second rule?
Even still, I must also agree with Peanut in that the story is mythical, so ultimately I cannot say if all of this is a historical analysis, or a metaphor for something deeper that we're missing (even though I take the idea to heart that there is always some amount of truth to any myth). After all, Adam is said to be forced to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for the rest of his life while exiled from the garden... which tree is this? In other words, this gives some in-story evidence for the idea that this was always meant to be taken as a myth and not a historical record (albeit, I can't say what the historical records of Cain's lineage were supposed to be for, or why they were really included to begin with).
Yuki-Anne wrote:To go back to the original point, that now we have wisdom because of sin: why do we need wisdom? Isn't it so that we won't do stupid things that have horrible results? If there are no horrible results (like, say, in an Edenesque situation) then I submit that there really is no need for wisdom. If we all lived in a paradise, who would need to be wise?
Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:The Bible is made up of many different genres but Genesis is written as a record of Hebrew history, not as something mythological in nature.
The way I see it, chapter two of Genesis is a blown up, zoomed in picture of day six in creation.
I have always believed that the tree was there to give Adam and Eve the option
See, God said that the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't say "If you eat it you will gain the knowledge of good and evil." It's Satan who said that.
Warrior 4 Jesus (post: 1434063) wrote:Peanut, you take the creation story etc. as symbolic in nature but how do you then take Jesus life, death and ressurection as anything but symbolic? The Bible is made up of many different genres but Genesis is written as a record of Hebrew history, not as something mythological in nature.
Me wrote:This has nothing to do with there historicity, it's merely a way to categorize them as literature and aid our interpretation.
goldenspines wrote:Its only stealing if you don't get caught.
Peanut (post: 1434034) wrote:1). The first to stories in the Bible are definitely mythic in nature. This has nothing to do with there historicity, it's merely a way to categorize them as literature and aid our interpretation.
Furen (post: 1434076) wrote:I have to ask you this,
when you say this you are meaning these are just symbolic and as such did not actually, physically happen? (or historically happen in our world?)
Please respond as if this is a case, there's some major topics that can arise out of this.
goldenspines wrote:Its only stealing if you don't get caught.
Peanut (post: 1434079) wrote:To explain further, when I say "This has nothing to do with the historicity of the documents" I'm not saying "These documents aren't historical," I'm saying that this fits a certain genre that has certain characteristics. Furthermore, I do think stories can be symbolic and still historically true. This story may be one of them it may not. Either way, my discussion is on the symbolism in it and the message (though not necessarily the main message). Hope that clears things up.
Furen (post: 1434085) wrote:if people take this as symbolic and nothing more, does this mean that any or all of it is so
Radical Dreamer (post: 1434092) wrote:What I've come to learn is that the Bible isn't a simple book, as far as interpreting it goes. When I say that, I mean that if you can interpret one part of the Bible symbolically (like the Psalms), it doesn't mean the entire Bible is meant to be interpreted only that way. The Bible is a complex book full of all sorts of genres, and you have to read each part of it in its original context. So if you take the first three chapters of Genesis symbolically (which I see no wrong in doing), it doesn't mean the entire book of Genesis ought to be viewed that way. A large part of Genesis is written as history, but there's actually pretty good reasoning behind viewing the first three chapters as poetry, the first chapter especially (ending each stanza in "and there was evening, and there was morning--the first/second/etc. day" is one example).
goldenspines wrote:Its only stealing if you don't get caught.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 143 guests