Paul5204

Haven't the time to read all the replies, but you are assuming that any punishment was for mere eating against the prohibition.

Ever ask yourself why God has his conversation with the-Adam? Ever hear of the concept of repentance? He didn't. He blamed God. So he got the boot. We can't have unrepentant sinners living in paradise. And heaven forbid he eats from the tree of life and lives forever as an unrepentant sinner. Oh, and his getting the boot was not punishment but mercy.

Also, there are not two stories. The Torah uses 'elohim when it is speaking of God in terms that even a pagan could understand, i.e., God's divinity and power. The Torah uses the Name when it is speaking of God in accordance with that particular Jewish conception of Deity. That is why you have the "bridge" verse in Genesis 2 which uses both 'elohim and the Name. That signals the transition from the story talking about God in terms that even a pagan could understand to talking about God in terms of that certain particular Jewish conception of Deity.

By the way, Madalyn, there is no prohibition in Genesis 1 re eating as that event occurred post-fall, i.e., they've already eaten from the one tree [so need of prohibition] and their access to that other tree has been barred. Two related items: (1) note that in terms of equality between the sexes, that God gave that man and woman joint dominion; (2) the text does not support the view that animals were then vegetarians, as God is not telling animals what they can eat, but telling the humans what they can eat and reminding them to share as he has already given the animals the same source of food.

Dean Anderson

Because that is what Yahweh explicitely says in Genesis 3:17. Your claims are unbiblical assertations.

No he didn't. He blamed no-one. He (truthfully) fingered Eve (Gen 3:12) as the one who gave him the fruit, but he made no assignation of blame. Your claims are unbiblical assertations again.

There is no mention of - or concept of - 'sin' in the Garden of Eden story. Once again, your claims are unbiblical assertations.

So are the multiple curses that Yahweh inflicts on Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15 to 3:19 'mercy' as well? Your concept of the denial of immortality being an act of mercy rather than punishment is yet another unbiblical assertation.

The division into two stories is not merely based on the difference in the name of the 'god' character in each one. They make different claims about the nature of the creative acts and the order in which things are created.

What textual evidence do you have for this claim - other than the need for it to be true to support your apologetics?

In summary, none of the claims you have made above actually match the text that we are discussing.

What evidence/argument/support do you have for these claims so that we should take them seriously?

Paul5204

Pervy Hobbit Fancier:

I would suggest some classes in understanding the use of language.

The man said:

"The woman you gave to me, she gave me of the fruit, and I ate."

If he was only relating the fact that the woman gave him some of that fruit, why on earth would he be reminding God that he gave her to him? There is no point in adding that in unless you are trying to say: God, it is your fault, because the woman you gave to me, she gave to me, and I ate.

By the way, the "gave" re the woman is a form of the Hebrew "natan." The "gave" re the fruit is also a form of the Hebrew "natan." Is the woman on par with a piece of fruit? Or more correctly, how does one give a human to another human? Last time I checked, before I could give another human to you, that human would have to be considered my property. She would then become yours once I gave her to you. But she is not his property. If you don't believe me, simply compare the naming of the animals with the naming of the woman. Re the animals, the text EXPLICITLY states the purpose behind God's bringing the animals to the man....TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL TO IT. Now note that a statement of purpose is entirely absent from the report of God bringing the woman to the man. Why? Because he can't call to her, because if he did, he'd be exercising dominion over her, but she's his equal. Simply consult any commentary, and you will find that re "God called to the light, day, and to the darkness he called night," the commentaries report that in doing so God was staking his claim to ownership. And as I said, in Genesis 1, the man and woman are explicitly given joint dominion over the animals, so that part in Genesis 2 re the naming and calling to them is wholly in accord with that grant of dominion. But not for the woman. Funny how men seem to have never understood that [my use of funny is wholly sarcastic].

You also ought to read that other Paul. He says that the command WAS TO LIFE? If so, then how can it be a statement of punishment? It's not. It's a warning. Ever tell your kid[s] to not put their hand on the stove [it may be hot and it may burn them]? Same principle here. God knew the man was a sinner, and wholly in accord with Leviticus 4, so long as the man does not know tov and ra', then although he may be a sinner, he is not in the position of having to repent [that comes when he learns tov and ra']. And since God knew that that first man, like most of us, would rather die than repent, he gave him a warning. God otherwise did not need to ask the man whether he ate, since the Torah makes plain that God knows all. God is asking the man, because in line with Leviticus 4, the man now knows tov and ra', he now knows that he's sinned, and the time has come for him to repent, so God has afforded him that opportunity. But he didn't. Again, he blamed God [since he was the one who "gave" the woman to him in the first instance]. Please bear with me, but do you have kids, or have you ever had kids? If so, then please think real hard about whether your own kids tried pretty much the same thing, i.e., blaming you for their own mistake. To be honest with you, I bought into the standard reading of the story [it hits you in Sunday school and stays locked in forever if you're not careful]. It was only when I was raising a child that it hit me between the eyes like that proverbial silver bullet [i.e., the first time that the child tried to blame me for something she had done, my brain went "click", then I went back, reread the story, and here I am].

Back to understanding language. Where does the text say that the woman was cursed? It does not. The man was also not cursed, but the ground for his sake [again, that formula rather strongly suggests mercy, i.e., whatever was done was for his sake, and not merely to punish him].

It also helps to remember that Hebrew does not have English verb tenses. In the Hebrew, verbs take the form of: (a) completed action, (b) action not yet complete, and (c) the imperative. So when you see the Hebrew form for completed action, know that the action is completed. But DON'T assume that what has just been described just happened a moment ago [vis-a-vis the story] as the Hebrew makes no such claim. You are assuming that God made the man and then made the animals and brought him to the man. And you've made that assumption entirely because your brain thinks in terms of English verb tenses.

DaMan121

Why would he be telling ANYTHING to god since god should know what happened the moment it happened.... No actually he would have known all along. Either way, thats not the reason God uses when he gives them both the boot.

Right, most of us would rather die than admit a mistake

Dean Anderson

Does he say 'It is your fault because the woman you gave to me gave me the fruit, and I ate it'?

No.

He says 'The woman you gave to me gave me the fruit, and I ate it'.

This is a simple statement of fact answering the question of what happened.

There was no explicit blame in this. Notice how Eve's statement differs. She says 'The serpent beguiled me and I ate the fruit. She is blaming the serpent and claiming to have been beguiled (thus absolving herself of blame). Adam makes no attempt to shift the blame. He simply states that Eve gave him the fruit and he ate it.

Women=Property is the standard view throughout the Hebrew Bible. I see no reason for that situation to be different in this particular story.


Rubbish. You are ignoring the text again in favour of your own presuppositions.

There is an explicit statement of purpose when Yahweh gives Eve to Adam.
Gen 2:18-20 states the purpose of Yahweh's creating the animals - as helpers for Adam. The animals are not suitable as helpers (funny how an omniscient God wouldn't have realised this) and so God creates Eve as a helper for Adam.

You are confusing the Genesis 1 story with the Genesis 2 story here. We are talking about the Genesis 2 tale with Adam created first, followed by the animals, followed by Eve - not the Genesis 1 story with the animals created first and then men and women together.

Just because they have been put side by side in the Bible doesn't mean they were written to go together.

Why would the letters of a Hellenicised Jew written hundreds of years later - whose beliefs were completely different to those of the authors - have any bearing on the text we are looking at?

Because he says that hundreds of years later and from a different religious viewpoint than the people who wrote the story.

It says so in Genesis 3:14 (where Yahweh explicitly curses Adam) and in Genesis 3:16 (where Yahweh explicitly curses Eve).

That was an easy question.

So you are saying that in the following sequence...

1) Yahweh said 'Adam shouldn't be alone. I will make him a helper'
2) Yahweh formed beasts out of the ground and brought them to Adam.
3) Yahweh saw that the beasts were not suitable helpers.
4) Yahweh took a rib from Adam and made Eve from it.

...the animals and Eve were both made previous to this conversation.

Forgive me for disagreeing with you and assuming that the author actually knew how to structure a story by putting cause-and-effect events in sequence.