Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-27-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, Adam might still be physically alive since we really do not know what the author of Genesis means he uses the words "day" and "die".

And, in retrospect, we have no idea what many things in the Bible really mean.

What is a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think the meaning of both day and die were clear enough. I think the assumption that this book is there to prove God's existence is a mistake. The author is explaining how man was originally created and what happened to get him all screwed up.

You are just making stuff up. You really have no idea who the author was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think the answer to your question lies in what would have the tree meant to the original audience. The theme of trees and rivers in Genesis is interesting (IMO) because of what they would have symobilized to people that wander around in the desert for a generation. The theme of trees and rivers (and their meanings) are restored in the book of revelation (21 or so).

Again, you just imagine all sorts of baseless theories. You really have no idea who the author of Revelation was and you don't really know what anything in Revelation means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichte

I imagine that you did not really care about all that, but I think it is much more interesting than the meanings of the word for "day". What was intended to be communicated was communicated plenty.

You appear to be very good at imagining things, but this time you are wrong, I really do care about everything in the Bible.

juergen · 05-27-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What is a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

One common metaphorical interpretation is that "good and evil" is a euphemism for "everything", as in "all knowledge". As God's pets, they had access to the tree of life which gave them immortality, but if they also partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would essentially be gods, having both all knowledge and eternal life. So god was basically holding out on them, until the serpent clues them in. At that point, god "kills them" or more precisely, condemns them to mortality by denying them access to the tree of life with the cherubs (monstrous lion-birds, not chubby baby angels) and flaming swords.

Had they had access to the tree of life yet at that point of the story? I remember reading god got scared that they might eat of that one too, so he kicks them out of the garden as quickly as possible.

sschlichter · 05-27-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, Adam might still be physically alive since we really do not know what the author of Genesis means he uses the words "day" and "die".

And, in retrospect, we have no idea what many things in the Bible really mean.

What is a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

You are just making stuff up. You really have no idea who the author was?

Again, you just imagine all sorts of baseless theories. You really have no idea who the author of Revelation was and you don't really know what anything in Revelation means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichte

I imagine that you did not really care about all that, but I think it is much more interesting than the meanings of the word for "day". What was intended to be communicated was communicated plenty.

You appear to be very good at imagining things, but this time you are wrong, I really do care about everything in the Bible.

I was referring to whether you care about my interpreatation of things.

mg01 · 05-27-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

One common metaphorical interpretation is that "good and evil" is a euphemism for "everything", as in "all knowledge". As God's pets, they had access to the tree of life which gave them immortality, but if they also partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would essentially be gods, having both all knowledge and eternal life. So god was basically holding out on them, until the serpent clues them in. At that point, god "kills them" or more precisely, condemns them to mortality by denying them access to the tree of life with the cherubs (monstrous lion-birds, not chubby baby angels) and flaming swords.

Had they had access to the tree of life yet at that point of the story? I remember reading god got scared that they might eat of that one too, so he kicks them out of the garden as quickly as possible.

The bit you refer to is explaining why they were kicked out. They were denied further access to the tree of life because they had eaten from the forbidden tree and gained knowledge. There was no denial of the tree of life prior to that. It implies that man is like god (or gods, depending on your interpretation of 8th/9th century theology in Judah) without imortality.

It's the same theme in Gilgamesh. Man is mortal, gods are not. It's the one thing seperating man and divinity. Utnapishnum (Sumerian Noah) finds favor and is granted imortality. He shares the secret of the life giving plant which lies at the bottom of the sea with Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh dives down and retrieves it. He hangs on to it intending to use it when he is old to restore his youth. However, the plant is stolen from him by a serpent, thus he looses his chance for eternal life.

The commonalities between the Bible and other cultures are not in the literal (presumed historical) details, but in the symbolism of the themes.

Toto · 05-27-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

In other words, God writes in a vague and ambiguous manner in order to drive everyone crazy while trying to interpret Him.

I don't know. Are any of the examples I gave unclear to you as to whether I am referring to a 24 hour day or a space of time? They seem clear to me. Many words have multiple meanings and their context is what you use to determine the meaning. It is just the nature of all languages.

bye the way, the definition I gave came from a Hebrew dictionary. there is nothing particularly theistic about it.

~Steve

spin seems to be on vacation, but he has written quite a bit here about the meaning of day in Genesis.

Check this thread: Day Age theory

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The only reason why someone would contemplate the notion that a day is not a day is that they are unhappy with the implications of a literal reading of the text. What this usually means is that they have different world view commitments to the writers of the text and are trying to stretch the text to fit these world view commitments.

When a text says something you should take it on face value unless the text itself forces you not to. This means if the text you are dealing with talks of a day and says that it is a thousand years, then you can't read references to day literally. Yet, if the text says "day" and refers to "morning" and "evening" and "night" at the same time, you get the basic content of the term reinforced, ie the ordinary conception of "day".

...

IIRC he has also argued that the Genesis days must be 24 hour periods to make sense of the Sabbath rule.

The Dagda · 05-27-2008, 12:51 PM

Semetic languages including Arabic, Syrian, Aramaic and others all have multiple meanings in terms of inflection and the written word. That's why people say you should really know about the language to read the Qur'an or indeed The Old Testament or some of the gnostic texts, The Dead Sea scrolls and so on, and of course most historians and theologians do in fact understand well those languages pertinent to them.

That said the fact that it means on the "day" you do x you will become mortal and henceforth suffer death is generally accepted. I'm perfectly willing to go along with that otherwise I'd have to accept that the numerous and subsequent copiers of the text were idiots and didn't spot such an obvious flaw in the text, that doesn't really make sense. I mean that particular set of books that include Genesis was probably passed on verbally and to some extent as texts, I'd be surprised if no one noticed that inconsistency, it ascribes too much idiocy over too prolonged a period of time. There are more obvious inconsistencies out there than that one, which just seems to me to be reaching a bit.

juergen · 05-27-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Had they had access to the tree of life yet at that point of the story? I remember reading god got scared that they might eat of that one too, so he kicks them out of the garden as quickly as possible.

The bit you refer to is explaining why they were kicked out. They were denied further access to the tree of life because they had eaten from the forbidden tree and gained knowledge. There was no denial of the tree of life prior to that. It implies that man is like god (or gods, depending on your interpretation of 8th/9th century theology in Judah) without imortality.

It's the same theme in Gilgamesh. Man is mortal, gods are not. It's the one thing seperating man and divinity. Utnapishnum (Sumerian Noah) finds favor and is granted imortality. He shares the secret of the life giving plant which lies at the bottom of the sea with Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh dives down and retrieves it. He hangs on to it intending to use it when he is old to restore his youth. However, the plant is stolen from him by a serpent, thus he looses his chance for eternal life.

The commonalities between the Bible and other cultures are not in the literal (presumed historical) details, but in the symbolism of the themes.

Thanks for the bit on Gilgamesh, I should read up on that.

As far as the tree of life goes, not to nit-pick (it really wouldn't make a difference to me either way), when it says

Quote:

Genesis 3
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

I get the impression they hadn't yet by the "and take also of the tree of life", but maybe it's just a translation issue.

sschlichter · 05-27-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I don't know. Are any of the examples I gave unclear to you as to whether I am referring to a 24 hour day or a space of time? They seem clear to me. Many words have multiple meanings and their context is what you use to determine the meaning. It is just the nature of all languages.

bye the way, the definition I gave came from a Hebrew dictionary. there is nothing particularly theistic about it.

~Steve

spin seems to be on vacation, but he has written quite a bit here about the meaning of day in Genesis.

Check this thread: Day Age theory

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The only reason why someone would contemplate the notion that a day is not a day is that they are unhappy with the implications of a literal reading of the text. What this usually means is that they have different world view commitments to the writers of the text and are trying to stretch the text to fit these world view commitments.

When a text says something you should take it on face value unless the text itself forces you not to. This means if the text you are dealing with talks of a day and says that it is a thousand years, then you can't read references to day literally. Yet, if the text says "day" and refers to "morning" and "evening" and "night" at the same time, you get the basic content of the term reinforced, ie the ordinary conception of "day".

...

IIRC he has also argued that the Genesis days must be 24 hour periods to make sense of the Sabbath rule.

A) this is not one of the Genesis days of creation that we are talking about.

B) this text does not refer to sunrises and sunsets

C) this is one of two explanations that I offered. the other included a literal day, as many translators have done - which I mentioned in my post. I can expound on this one if you prefer. IMO , both are possible and far more likely than the author missed this profound 'catch' that you have only now stumbled on.

Toto · 05-27-2008, 02:01 PM

OK - you agree that the text says a day and likely means a 24 hour period according to people who read the passage in the original Hebrew, so you have to find some other out for god - but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me so far.

The most obvious interpretation was that YHWH was threatening dire consequences to Adam and Eve for eating from that tree, but he later changed his mind and gave them a lesser punishment. This seems consistent with the picture of YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures - a powerful supernatural entity, but not necessarily a rational one, and with some compassion, but not an infinite amount.

And I have heard some (very liberal) Rabbis claim that there are clues in the Torah that indicate it is not to be taken as literal down-to-earth fact. Perhaps this is one of them?

sschlichter · 05-27-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK - you agree that the text says a day and likely means a 24 hour period according to people who read the passage in the original Hebrew, so you have to find some other out for god - but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me so far.

The most obvious interpretation was that YHWH was threatening dire consequences to Adam and Eve for eating from that tree, but he later changed his mind and gave them a lesser punishment. This seems consistent with the picture of YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures - a powerful supernatural entity, but not necessarily a rational one, and with some compassion, but not an infinite amount.

And I have heard some (very liberal) Rabbis claim that there are clues in the Torah that indicate it is not to be taken as literal down-to-earth fact. Perhaps this is one of them?

One similar line of thought, but admittedly less anti-YHWH, is that God said they should die because that was the just punishment for disobedience. In his mercy, he sacrificed animals on the same day (24 hours, since that was apparently a requirement) instead and covered them with their skins. (Gen 3)

This rational and compassionate act was A) a lesson as to the seriousness of the offense and B) a foreshadowing to a more permanent sacrifice.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2008, 12:51 PM	#26
The Dagda Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: England, Portsmouth Posts: 5,108	Semetic languages including Arabic, Syrian, Aramaic and others all have multiple meanings in terms of inflection and the written word. That's why people say you should really know about the language to read the Qur'an or indeed The Old Testament or some of the gnostic texts, The Dead Sea scrolls and so on, and of course most historians and theologians do in fact understand well those languages pertinent to them. That said the fact that it means on the "day" you do x you will become mortal and henceforth suffer death is generally accepted. I'm perfectly willing to go along with that otherwise I'd have to accept that the numerous and subsequent copiers of the text were idiots and didn't spot such an obvious flaw in the text, that doesn't really make sense. I mean that particular set of books that include Genesis was probably passed on verbally and to some extent as texts, I'd be surprised if no one noticed that inconsistency, it ascribes too much idiocy over too prolonged a period of time. There are more obvious inconsistencies out there than that one, which just seems to me to be reaching a bit.

05-27-2008, 02:01 PM	#29
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	OK - you agree that the text says a day and likely means a 24 hour period according to people who read the passage in the original Hebrew, so you have to find some other out for god - but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me so far. The most obvious interpretation was that YHWH was threatening dire consequences to Adam and Eve for eating from that tree, but he later changed his mind and gave them a lesser punishment. This seems consistent with the picture of YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures - a powerful supernatural entity, but not necessarily a rational one, and with some compassion, but not an infinite amount. And I have heard some (very liberal) Rabbis claim that there are clues in the Torah that indicate it is not to be taken as literal down-to-earth fact. Perhaps this is one of them?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.