pharoah

This is not a clear-cut identification of Satan as the serpent in the garden. Paul also makes a reference to the serpent that deceived Eve, but he doesn't identify the serpent as Satan.
So basically there is nowhere in the Bible that Satan is identified as the serpent in the garden.

With enough ingenuity, this could be interpreted to make Dan as the serpent in the garden.

It's funny that you should mention the census. Exactly who incited David to take it? God or Satan? It depends on which version you choose to accept. Since Satan is portrayed in Job as acting on the orders of God I guess it doesn't really matter. Either way it was God's decision to have David take the census.

Christians who take the story of the Fall literally believe that the Fall caused wholesale changes in animals. A whole bunch of grass-eating animals suddenly became carnivores, parasites and vicious creatures, all because Adam ate some fruit. However, you seem to have a remarkably difficult time accepting the idea that before the Fall a snake could talk on its own, even though it could walk and was craftier than any beast. Why is that? The very use of terms like subtle and crafty in describing the snake strongly implies that it was capable of guile and deceit.

Let's take another approach to this.
I assume that you believe that this is a Messianic prophecy and that the personalities being referred to are Jesus and Satan. There's a huge gaping hole with this theory that evangelicals overlook. If Jesus is God or the pre-existing Son of God, why would God need to put enmity between him and Satan? The enmity would have already been there.

Amaleq13

The more typical use of the word in the Bible neither requires nor suggests nor implies that the hostility and hatred must be between two persons but, in addition to that mistaken assumption, you are clearly attempting to shift the burden from yourself where it belongs.

What you need to support your claim is to find an example where a different word is used to describe hostility and hatred between human and an animal.

Absent such an example, there is absolutely no reason to read this word as meaning anything other than what it appears mean (ie divinely ordered hatred between humans and snakes).

Equinox

Amaleg wrote:


I have to agree with Amaleg here. This appears to be a part of the story added to explain the well-documented instinctive fear of snakes humans have. For some reason, this story is more easily believed by many americans than the idea that snakes in africa, where we evolved, are often poisionous, so a proto-human with a fear of snakes would have a selective advantage, and thus lead to all races of humans having a basic fear of snakes.

It's not a major issue to me, still, occam (or at least his razor) make me lean toward the "explain human fear of snakes" hypothesis.

My two cents.

-Equinox

John A. Broussard

In other words, god tells us what god wants to say and leaves it up to us to make up any stories we want to fill in the details.

See the above explanation a theist gave for no babies being mentioned prior to the Universal Flood. Your explanation of Adam's fall ranks along with that.

Thanks for your posts, by the way. They are truly amazing.

rhutchin

Here is my recollection of the previous discussions.

1. You claimed that God’s knowledge of your future actions prevented you from doing other than that which God foreknew.
2. You could never, ever explain how it was that God’s knowledge “caused� you to do that which God knew you would do.
3. It was also true that you always choose and will choose to do that which is consistent with your desires.
4. Consequently, that which causes you to act are your desires and God then can know how your desires will compel you to act. God does not have to compel you to act one way or the other. He need only let you be yourself.
5. It is not God’s foreknowledge that restricts your ability to act; it is your own desires. That God knows all this has nothing to do with that which you do.

If the above is not true, maybe you can establish the causal chain from God’s knowledge and your action to show how God’s knowledge “causes� your actions. I’m betting you can no more explain this now than you could earlier.

John A. Broussard

Time for my oft repeated omniscient god vs. free will argument.

Please point out what's wrong with it.

Thank you.

****

Assumption one is that there exists an omniscient, sentient being.

Assumption two is that that being has written all that has happened, is happening and will happen in a large book. Since the book includes the entire universe, every quark and quasar, every real and virtual particle, every thought of every thinking creature--everything in fact--it is necessarily a rather large book. (This second assumption isn't vital to this discussion, since an omniscient sentient being would have all these events already written in its mind. The big book just makes for easier discussion)

The third assumption is self evident. Human beings either have or do not have free will.

Given assumptions one and two, let's assume that human beings do not have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer inevitably seems to be "no."

Given assumptions one and two again, let's assume that human beings do have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer seems necessarily to be also "no."

If the above reasoning is correct, then--given the existence of an omniscient, sentient being--it doesn't matter whether human beings do or do not have free will. Such a being simply makes free will irrelevant.

Wayne Delia

Yep.
Nope. I explained it literally several dozen times, and will do so again: God's perfectly accurate knowledge of the one option inevitably selected logically eliminates all other options from any possibility of being selected, for to do so would render God wrong in what He knew, thus refuting the assumed premise that God is omniscient. And in the same number of several dozen times I've explained it, you've managed to either ignore it or fail to understand it.

Wrong. I've also explained that several dozen times, refuting it with a single, simple assertion you have never once addressed: What I choose, what I desire, is to do something God knows I won't do. Since God can't be wrong in what He knows, I can't possibly do what I explicitly desire. Again, in each of the several dozen times I refuted you, you have ignored it or failed to understand it.

But according to my explicit desire - to do something other than what God knows I will do - God would therefore be wrong in what He knows, and His omniscience is refuted. Otherwise, if I can't do anything other than what God knows I will do, then I clearly don't have free will.

And me being myself, I choose to do something that God knows I won't do. If I can't, I don't have free will. If I can, then God is wrong, and therefore He is not omniscient. That covers all the possibilities: either I have no free will in anything, or else God is necessarily not omniscient. Pick one.

Of course it has something to do with it. God can't be wrong, and therefore, I can't possibly do anything else. This is simple enough for even you to understand, but you can't admit it, because it would shatter your curious brand of theology. Have you ever wondered why so many people were throwing around the term "cognitive dissonance?"

Your failure to understand it is no problem of mine. You've ignored, or failed to understand, the answer the last several dozen times it was given. What has changed since then that you think you'll be able to handle it now?

WMD

Rowantree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins You are making alot of assumptions here with no basis for any of them. Who is to say the serpent didn't take of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? You then back this up by saying then that he didn't eat of the Tree of Life. To this I have two responses. First, the Tree of Life is mentioned only in two far apart sections. It seems to have no play in the story at all. One would have to assume that the serpent and man and woman would have eaten from the Tree of Life eventually while in the Garden. Oddly, there was no prohibition of eating from the Tree of Life. So to ponder that the serpent never had would sound odd seeing there was no reason to have not.

Well I actually DID make the statement the serpent could have partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. However, why I make the argument the serpent did not partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life is simple logic. If these beings were already alive why is there a need for a Tree of Life. Unless, the fruit of it bestows life as the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge bestows knowledge. But since man and woman and serpent all die it seems they did no partake of the fruit of life. (Besides the fact serpents are carnivores and would not eat fruit to be completely logical.)

However, to say the Tree of Life had "no play" when man and woman were kicked out of Eden for fear they would partake of its fruit is not only illogical but incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins Check your Bible. Man is created in God's image in the "First" Story of Creation, not the story of The Garden. In the First Story of Creation, man is made in God's image and told to: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." In the Narrative of The Garden, man is formed from clay, born to be a servent to God: "to work it and take care of" the Garden of Eden... a far cry from being told to go out and multiply and do as they liked. You are confusing your Creation Stories. In the Narrative of the Garden, man is made of clay. Does this mean God is made of clay? Your parallel isn't logical, nor is it hinted in the narrative. As the Narrative reads, man is not born a Demi-God. And if we are going to make grand conclusions like that, then I can claim the IPU is the muse to God in the Narrative of the Garden. May be entirely wrong, but I can get to make things up too!

Yes there ARE two accounts of creation. Yet one must ponder if you fully read Genesis chapter 2. For instance:

Quote:

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Line 4 and 5 tell us of things being created before they were on the Earth. Then line 7 says God breathed into dust and created a living soul. Now are souls made of dust? Or could it be God created a carbon based life form that housed the soul created prior in chapter 1. I mean line 4 and 5 just said everything was created before it was on Earth. Also, this all takes place AFTER the 7 days mentioned in chapter 1. Also, in Genesis chapter 1 animals were created before man but in Genesis 2:18-20 God formed animals of the dust for Adam to keep him company. Then, in Genesis 2:21-22 woman was created after man and animals.

So since God cannot be seen or touched it is safe to say he is not made of clay but since the first story is referenced in the second (Genesis 2:1-3) we can assume man was created in God's image (spirit/soul) in the first creation. We have no guarantee we were created in his image during the second (body). This is why I do not see how both Evolution and Intelligent Design could not both be right.

You say the claims are illogical. You make the assumption the stories were in conflict but with the second referencing the first, logically, one could equally assume they are complimentary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins Hardly a condemnation of God. Rather it raises a serious issue as to why two seperate prohibitions are in the Narrative. How many times do phrases get repeated in the Bible, word for word... a manner to make the scripture easier to remember? So the fact that there are two different prohibitions in the Narrative raises a serious issue regarding the cohesivity of the Narrative itself! Not when there are only two humans on the planet. Why not? Does the Narrative speak that the woman knew not what she spoke? Game? Two people? Are you serious? That is a rather naive conclusion to come up with. You seem to come to this conclusion that the woman couldn't have been right, but you seem to have no scriptural evidence from the Narrative itself.

Actually, looking throughout the Bible you would be hard pressed to see two identical accounts. However, whether there were only two or two hundred the fact remains scripture states God told Adam not to partake of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge in Genesis 2:17; Woman* was not even created until Genesis 2:22. So in actuality there was only ONE person when the prohibition was passed. One can only guess how Woman* learned of it but most probably from Adam. (Again this is ambiguous to scripture.)

But if we go solely by scripture, God only told Adam. So, going by scripture alone, woman never heard the prohibition. Ask any cop, lawyer or judge and they will tell you unless it is heard directly by a witness any claim is hearsay. Is the fault with woman? Not necessarily, it could be with Adam. Like I said, from God to Adam to Woman to Serpent it is not so farfetched the story was embellished and changed. For not even a first hand witness could necessarily quote someone verbatim.


*Scripture calls her Woman until Genesis 3:20 when Adam names her Eve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins I never made this claim. So why you choose to refute it against me is beyond my understanding. This is what Christians have told themselves over and over and they believe that now... kinda like how conservatives are convinced it was a Democratic Congress that put the US into the red in the 1980's. Neither would appear to be true.

I do apologize. This was merely a reference to other posts. I know you did not make that claim. Though, belief is a powerful thing. You ask people if it is true matter cannot created or destroyed or if light is a wave and most would say yes. But someone that studies Quantum Physics would note that electrons will disappear completely with no explanation as well as quote the Photoelectric Effect on the debate of light. (The simplest reference for this is the documentary "What The Bleep Do We Know?") But people believe what they are taught. What they are taught may not remain true. (Like old films that say to duck and cover during a nuclear explosion for safety.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins Facts remain this: 1) The Narrative speaks of no muse for the serpent, nor does it speak of an anomosity towards man 2) Serpent is spoken as being the most cunning of creatures 3) Christians assume the serpent must be against man, but it is the serpent that sees through God's lie. 4) The serpent never lied to the woman... though the woman would later claim that she was deceived, over what, the story never tells. 5) God does not throw man from the Garden because he broke the prohibition (of which there are two listed in the story) 6) God throws man out because man had become like God. This is clearly a jealous God's reaction.

Objection on number 3. You claim God lied. Genesis 3:22 shows us that if man took of the Tree of Life he would live forever. And as such it also says God exiled Adam and Eve before they could eat of it and as such they did not live forever, or rather they died. I don't see how he lied because had they taken of the Tree of Life, as even you above conceded they would have, they would live forever. God said they would die (Genesis 2:17, 3:19), not that they would die instantly. (Genesis 2:17 does mention day in some translations. But looking in lexicons the term yowm in the Bible has many meanings from "period of time" to "year" to "lifetime" to "24 hours.") But as this is a matter of semantics you cannot say it is a "fact."

As for four the only argument I can say are first the Serpent was subtle. Second Eve said this after she knew of Good and Evil, and was as a God so she would know by not taking of the fruit of the Tree of Life she would die. So, maybe when the serpent said she would not die by taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and now that she knew of the Tree of Life, she felt he lied. *shrugs* But that is a thin argument I know.

In my culture serpents were seen as a neutral totem. Some legends said they were good, others bad. In this one it says a serpent told woman to do what her creator said not to do (to her husband admittedly). I guess the reason people look disdainfully on the serpent is the same reason you would say it is wrong for someone to tell a child to eat the candy their parent just said they could not have. Again, I hold the theory the serpent was created by God knowing it would test Adam and Woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins Funny you make that comment when you previously said: "Also there was mention previously that Adam and Eve were tricked because they didn't know good and evil before they ate the fruit." That would have been somewhat like a 2 year old as well. Make up your mind who's commentary you are trying to believe please.

Not really. You have to have humor in life. And as for who I believe: no one. I think for myself.

rhutchin

I don't see anything wrong with the "free will" portion of your argument.

Your conclusion, "Such a being simply makes free will irrelevant," is that which I don't see that you have proved. God's prior knowledge of the choices that man makes does NOT compel man to make those choices. God's foreknowledge of the choices that man makes also includes a knowledge of the deterministic forces that cause those choices. Those deterministic forces are the desires of man that express themselves in choices. The foreknowledge of God makes certain that which God says in such statements as this--

Genesis 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Mark 2
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,...

Judges 21
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

If God did not have foreknowledge, none of the above would change. Whether God has knowledge of man's future actions or does not, it is still true that men choose consistent with their desires and "free will" tells us that men do as they desire and not otherwise.

John A. Broussard

Thanks for considering the argument. Since you've rejected the argument, and haven't explained why, I suspect you must be quarreling with one or the other of these assumptions:

****

Given assumptions one and two, let's assume that human beings do not have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer inevitably seems to be "no."

Given assumptions one and two again, let's assume that human beings do have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer seems necessarily to be also "no."

*****

Please tell me which you are rejecting and why it makes a difference whether or not you have free will, given an omniscient god.

Thank you.