SLD

I was reading a book on the history of Christianity recently and came across a bizarre argument in late Roman, early medieval times, and thought it would be interesting to hear a modern perspective on this theological argument:



Or would this be a better topic at Theology Web or some other apologetics place?

What say ye?

SLD

Toto

I have heard commentators assert that this proves that Genesis was meant to be ironic, humorous.

But I think that it is clear that the god of the early OT was not omnipotent or omni-anything. He was a god (like the Greek gods) of supernatural powers, but not all powerful. He could be stopped by iron chariots. He didn't know what his creations were up to. He did craxy stuff like destroying his creation because it was so evil, and then apologizing with a rainbow.

Calzaer

God was just testing Adam, to see if he'd tell the truth.

Not that it mattered, since God knew already that Adam would pass the buck, but it's always nice to convince your abuse victims that the abuse is their fault.

Wayne P

Yahweh does the same thing in the story of Balaam in Numbers. The ambassadors from Balak are spending the night at Balaam's house and Yahweh has to ask who they are. Was that meant to be ironic?

And another habit that Yahweh shows in the Balaam story is that he tells Balaam to go with Balak's people and as soon as Balaam does, Yahweh get mad at him. Yahweh then pulls this same thing on David a few hundred years later, tells David to take a census and when 'righteous' David does so Yahwek gets mad and kills 70,000 Isrealites. Which, of course, brings up yet another habit of Yahweh's. He commands that only the people who commit the sin should be punished for it and yet he keeps punishing people for what somebody else does. (e.g. David and Bathsheba and their child, the Amalikites and so on.)

Yahweh has a lot of bad habits, I guess.

CJD

YHWH, being potent, but not omni-potent, could be thwarted by "iron chariots," not knowing "what his creations were up to." Yet he did crazy stuff like destroy his creation in a flood . . . because it was so evil" (which would entail, among others things, knowing what his creation was up to, and that creation was unable to thwart his potency).

Sometimes we utter the most preposterous, contradictory and befuddled gunk that we, like Hegel before us, suppose to have waxed genius.

Brian_iiiii

=============================================
If God's Omniscient, how come he come he had to ask where Adam was in the Garden of Eden and whether he had eaten from the tree of knowledge?
=============================================

I think anyone with small children can explain this one.

Adam, is there something you want to tell me about the cookie jar in the kitchen?

beastmaster

Compare Genesis 4:

Here, YHWH coyly asks Cain where Abel is. Not because YHWH does not know the answer. To the contrary, YHWH knew Abel is dead per verse 10. So why does he ask?

I think YHWH's questions are best understood as demonstrations of *authority*. Asking questions when the answers are already known puts the answerer on the defensive.

Similarly, I don't think YHWH's question in Genesis 3 asked of Adam *necessarily* contradicts the claim of omniscience. Rather, it is a gesture of authority.

SLD

OK, you've all committed enough blasphemy to be burned at the stake, at least in Medieval times.

I too thought at first blush that the questioning was more in line of a parent to a child he knows has done something wrong, but I see the whole colloquy different when read in its entirety:

Any good litigator knows to ask leading questions to elicit the response you want. That's what we do to children: "You got a cookie out of the jar, didn't you?" "You ate that cookie when Mommie told you not to, didn't you?"

Those kinds of questions elicit a positive response because the child knows that you know. But God's questions to Adam and Eve suggested that he really doesn't know what all has happened. He certainly doesn't know that it was the serpent who did it to Eve. He doesn't seem to know that it was Eve who gave the fruit to Adam.

Irenaeus would answer such critics with the response that there was no point in answering such questions since we could not possibly comprehend God's mind and that it was blasphemous to test him with such impertinence. That was the Church's position for millenia afterwards, and it is, IMHO, the ultimate reason for the dark ages - don't question, just obey.

SLD

Amos

There are two things wrong with your question. First, it was not God but Lord God who asked the question and second, Lord God did not ask Adam but he asked "man" and the reason why Lord God asked this question is because the man identity had become overshadowed the Adam identity and this dual identity is made clear with "who told you that you were naked."

Notice that before the fall they were naked but without an ego identity they could not have any shame (Gen.2:25) and the no shame/shame difference from before and after the fall clearly indicated that a new identity had been formed and this identity is called Adam (probably because the first 'dam' was violated).

SLD

So Lord God and God are two different entities? IIRC, that's what the Marcionites believed - that the "God" of the Old Testament was not the same as God, and indeed was an evil being even though he created the universe and Man. The real God was Jesus and he came down to earth to straighten everybody out.

Is that what you are arguing Amos?

If so, the Catholic Church pretty much declared such views non-grata right after they were asserted. They didn't have the power to burn Marcion at the stake at that time, but they did give back all the money he had given the church.

SLD