Malachi151

This, again, is because of the Sumerian basis of the story, in which the gods are are basically rulers that live on earth, presiding over a population of primitive slave people.

Roach Clips

Well, the guy I was debating left but new Christian took his place.

I'll skip most of the debate because he repetitive, saying the same thing over and over. Here's his last statement "God intended mankind to live forever. They we're in a state where they wouldn't die because they had access to the tree of life. They became mortal and did in fact die by being departed from this earth. The death is also a spiritualy death. You can't take everything in the Bible literally."

I said none of this is backed up scripture and it's also contradicted by what's said in the story, yadda, yadda, yadda

Then he went out and C&P this doosy;

There are some significant differences in the Hebrew words that have been translated as "die" and "surely die" in the recording of the communications of the Lord, Adam, Eve, and the serpent. The quote from the Scriptures that follow are Word by Word translations from the "Interlinear Bible" by J. P. Green and following each passage there is a magnified selection from the "Interlinear Bible" which is included to show in detail the recorded Hebrew words that are translated as die in each Passage. (Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left.)

"... Of every tree of the garden surely you may eat;
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
not you shall eat from it;
in the day of your eating from it
surely you shall die". (Genesis 2:16-17)

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/333/gen217sa8.jpg

Notice that the Hebrew word ( Strong's # 4191 ) is repeated which is a technique often used in the Hebrew for emphasis and the last of the passage is often translated more literally as "dying thou shall die". A less literal translation is "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". For we know from reading the rest of the story the penalty was not sudden physical death, but as soon as the disobedience occurred Adam and Eve's relationship with the Lord was drastically changed and they were reduced to hiding in the bushes, the penalties were soon announced, and they were banished from the garden to continue the rest of their life in toil and sorrows.

"And said the woman to the serpent.
Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat,
but the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden had said God,
not shall you eat of it, nor shall you touch it,
lest you die." (Genesis 3:2-3)

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4923/gen33hp1.jpg

Notice that Eve did not repeat the form of the Words of the Lord! Instead she varied the Hebrew word translated as die and did not use the repeated word form used for emphasis. She also added the phrase about not touching it. The word form she used is unusual and similar forms appear only in Numbers 16:29 and Isaiah 22:14 and in both of these occurances it appears to mean a physical death under conditions of judgment. It would appear that in her statement she was possibly showing her uncertainty or lack of full understanding as to exactly when and what would be the result of disobedience and the seriousness of the penalty. Eve would seem to have no way of knowing about death unless she had witnessed the physical death of a plant or an animal.

"And said the serpent to the woman,
Not surely you shall die." (Genesis 3:4)

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8193/gen34lz4.jpg

The reply of the serpent is phrased negatively and returns to the repeated word form but uses the same word form as the Lord for the first word and the word of Eve for the second word. This repeated word form is unique and appears no where else in the Scriptures. Therefore, the reply seems to be directed to how Eve had phrased her answer and to be correcting her statement or adding special emphasis in a negative way. There surely must be meanings within these Hebrew word changes that are not fully revealed by the translations. Looking in Strong's "Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible" we find the following.

http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/2174/muwthjm7.jpg

Verse 3:8 says that Adam and Eve heard the voice/sound of the Lord in the garden and 3:17 says Adam listened to the voice of Eve. However, the Hebrew word used in the verses concerning the serpent, the Hebrew word usually translated as said, and transliterated as "amar" (Strong's #559) per Strong is a primary root, to say, but "used with great latitude". This translation latitude includes "said in his heart" of Genesis 17:7 and 27:41. "Think" of II Samuel 13:33 and of II Chronicles 13:8. And "commune" of Psalms 4:4. Therefore the Hebrew word can cover communications from vocal speech to private thoughts of the heart. We are told that the "serpent" was more "subtil/wise/cunning/clever" of all the "wild beasts". Ask any pet owner that has a "clever" pet and most usually they will say that they can know what their pet is thinking and wants from its owner. Even many wild animals not considered as being so clever have a way of communicating with humans. The editor recently had an experience when they were watering their garden inside a six foot high fence on a very hot evening and there appeared a wild hen turkey and three babies just outside the fence, and even though being far from one "who talks with the animals", we could readily see that the birds wanted water and sprayed a puddle on the ground outside the fence from which the birds rapidly quenched their thirst.

Roach Clips

Why? Because it's fun and one of the best methods of learning. ie, I never knew of the Summerian connection to the Garden of Eden, until Malachi151 brought it up.

Gosh, how do you think it will end? I don't know.

Who will win? Most likely no one, unless he conceeds, which I have yet to see anyone ever do. It's not who wins that matters, it's the journey I'm in it for.



If you are genuinely interested in this stuff you might want to read what Leolaia has to say about this:

The Tree of Life, Asherah, and Her Snakes.

I think that that link is a great example of someone who understands the issues and is willing support their claims with facts.

I checked that link out but I must be stupid or something because I don't understand what that person is saying.

Malachi151

I think that these discussions and the research that they instigate, is a great way to learn and explore concepts and get a better understanding. You learn a lot better this way than by simply reading some book.

hatsoff

I've always read it kind of like this:

God makes man, gives him eternal life, a sexy girlfriend, a really cool place to live and regular communication with his maker. He asks but one thing in return: "Let me keep this secret; I know that sounds weird, but you'll just have to trust me. Don't eat the fruit from that one tree. That's my only rule. In the mean time, eat anything else you want, frolick in your Garden and if you ever get bored just give me a buzz. Oh, and you can thank me later for your curvy companion."

Adam thumbs his nose, eats the fruit, and then tries to lie about it. God gets pissed off (who wouldn't?) and says, "Holy cow, did you really need to do that? Didn't you know it would piss me off? Okay, well here's what we'll do about it: You can still keep your eternal life and paradise pad, but now you're going to have to spend about 75 years dealing with pain and suffering, first. Oh, and if you piss me off again by, say, not believing I exist, then I'm just not going to deal with you at all."

Anat

hatsoff, you forgot the part about Adam being created to work in the garden. You also forgot that the author of the story did not believe in an afterlife. And Adam lived 900+ years. It isn't even clear to me God intended Adam to eat from the tree of life. Of course the whole situation is silly. A sane and humane person does not dangle a temptation in front of another that way.

hinduwoman

What were Adam and Eve meant to do in the garden anyway except multiply?
If it was really Paradise why were they working?

Roach Clips

I'm reading this, which is my Christian opponents best evidence in favour of his "spiritual death" thoery. And this part strikes me "the passage is often translated more literally as "dying thou shall die". A less literal translation is "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die".

A less literal translation? What is the more literal translation? Is it "thou shall surely die"? I'm not familiar with translations, so can anyone more experienced help me out with this? Because it sounds to like they're just trying to change the meaning to better fit their view.

Y.B

And why did God create such a wicked creature as the snake? For fun? And couldn't he have warned Adam and Eve about the cunning snake?

Malachi151

This is where we get back to the Sumerian roots.

The Genesis story is just a derivation of the earlier story, so parts of it don't make sense if you don't know that context, which is what we have done today, and thus we have fabricated ideas into the story which were never really in the minds of the writers.

The story as presented by the Hebrews isn't really all that bad, in some ways its a positive retelling of the existing Sumerian and Babylonian stories, but in others its not.

The twists are this:

Sumerian/Babylonian:

1) The gods exist on earth and create naked humans to do their work for them.
2) The gods keep knowledge from the humans so that they will continue to work for them.
3) The flaws of humans are created by the gods.
4) The gods eventually grant knowledge to the humans, and invite them to "become like them".
5) The city is depicted as good, and "edin" is depicted as bad. "Edin" is the wilderness, and the city is civilization, where the gods live.
6) The naked humans leave edin to enter the the city after the gods give them knowledge.

Making sense so far?

Hebrew:

1) God is not of the earth, he creates everything.
2) God creates humans as his favorite beings, and sets them to work in the wilderness. (Why are they working? No reason, its just a hold over from the Sumerian story)
3) God creates humans as perfect, and gives them "free will"
4) God tells the naked humans not to obtain knowledge, but due to trickery and free will, they disobey God and bring a curse on themselves, creating the flaws of humans and gaining knowledge through disobedience.
5) God says "they have become like us" (another hold over from the Sumerian story) - so we have become "like God", against his will in this case.
6) "Eden" is good, and the city is bad. When the humans get knowledge they are expelled from the wilderness, and Cain, the "bad one" is the first to go to the city. The city and civilization represent "bad", and the preexisting naked condition in the wilderness represents "the good".

God, also, in the Hebrew story, grants a day of rest, while in the Sumerian there is no day of rest.

So, the Hebrew story came about some 1,000+ years after the Sumerian story originated andit puts a different spin on basically the same story.

Why these specific changes? I'm not sure. Perhaps the Hebrews were of a more privative people, who lived outside the cities, and they viewed cities and city dwellers as bad and corrupt, and thus they idealized rural/nomadic life. So, it seems to be a story about how the rural/nomadic people are God's people and the city dwellers are bad people, which would pretty much fit with other elements of early Hebrew mythology.