CJD

Jack, the NT references are parallels. Nothing more or less. I was not "quoting" them. You can read it more like, "And by the way, from an Xian perspective, these NT references encapsulate or embody the Genesis event." Just pointing out continuity is all. I'll do that every chance I get, just to warn you in advance.


2. The KJV rendering is good enough. But the logic does not lead us to think fear motivates God; rather, the logic of the text leads us to think that God will have no other "gods" challenging his authority. So, he kicks them out of the garden. Maybe we do read it the same way. I just presume YHWH is holy, you presume he is a fool (I, however, have greater textual support than you do).

3. Just for the record, the concept that God is holy is easily found in the book of Genesis. To illustrate this point conclusively, we will look at his holiness in a portion of Scripture that proceeds the text we have been looking at thus far (Gen. 3:23–24):

In the opening verses of the bible we are immediately introduced to the Creator as a God of moral benevolence and goodness.

At the close of each creative period—verses 10, 12, 18, 21, 25—it says that what God created (bringing cosmic order) was good (Hebrew, towb). He formed man and woman as the last creative act in the literary framework and then in verse 31, he looks back upon all of what he created and calls it "very good," towb meod, as in "veeerrrry good."

You should be interested in the fact that the Hebrew word, towb, often refers to God in scripture as meaning "morally good" (you can do the lexical search on your own—the references are too many). We can therefore surmise that he is being depicted here in some sense as the the source of supreme moral goodness. To be the source of supreme moral goodness, logic would dictate, he must possess perfect moral goodness in the supreme sense. Yes? From an Xian perspective, it should be obvious to you that God's very first acts, our first impressions of him in Scripture, allude to his holy nature.

Is it not at least plausible that Genesis depicts a holy God, rather than a fearful one?

Regards,

CJD

p.s. I would expect your reply to the contrary to make use of responsible textual criticism. That is, show me how the text supports your reading, not merely what you think the text says. Do this, and you'll avoid the typical sloppy solipsism found so often on this forum.

Jack the Bodiless

If the premise is that God has genuine reasons for believing that humans will become rival gods and challenge his authority: why is his action foolish?

I don't consider God to be a fool, I consider him to be nonexistent. But, here, I'm trying to get inside the concept of God believed in by the author of this story: a powerful but fallible and non-omnimax one.

As for "holiness": what does that mean, exactly? In later apologetics, it apparently means something more like "intolerance" than "benevolence": a destructive aura that prevents anything "impure" from existing anywhere near God's physical presence. This sort of effect occurs in the "divine mooning" (Exodus, I think) where God lets Moses see his back parts because Moses coudn't survive seeing God's face. The same thing crops up in Greek myth, too: Semele dies when she sees the glory of Zeus.

But I see none of that in early Genesis, when Adam, Eve and God are strolling about in the Garden.

Yet Christians often use this "holy incompatibility effect" to justify both the Fall and the inability of sinners to live with God in the afterlife. It appears that you, however, are prepared to accept God's fear of humans becoming rivals (even if you don't want to use the word "fear": pragmatism? Justifiable concern? Whatever).

mike_decock

It doesn't add anything to the discussion. It just makes you "preachy", IMO.


I don't think "fear" (as you are thinking of it) is what's really implied here, either. Perhaps "dislike" or "not-wishing" is closer. I think it's quite apparent that YHWH didn't want humans to have knowledge of good and evil as well as everlasting life.

I'm not "presuming" anything about YHWH. I'm just looking at the character of YHWH in the A&E narrative without trying to fit him into a specific theology: "fool", "holy" or whatever.

Consider these elements on their own merits:

1) YHWH tells A&E that they will die the day they eat the fruit and they don't.
2) YHWH asks A&E "Where art thou?" (Gen 3:9)
3) YHWH asks A&E "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" (Gen 3:11)
4) YHWH asks Cain "Where is Abel thy brother?"(Gen 4:9)
5) YHWH tells cain he will be a "fugitive and a vagabond" yet he settles down. (Gen 4:12)

Do you honestly think this depicts an omnipotent and omniscient God?

-Mike...

CJD

Jack, I see your points, and I largely agree. The first chapter of Genesis does, I believe, portray a holy God—holy in the way I described in the previous post. We would be amiss to try and get much more about "holiness" out of it.

The early parts of Genesis do indeed portray a benevolent (holy) God. Now, the "holiness' you described must factor in at some point. But it is not, from my perspective, "intolerance" (you would judge God according to your understanding of what it means to be tolerant). If "holiness" meant "the inability of sinners to live with God in the afterlife" as you have heard somewheres, then no one would be with him in the afterlife. I think you get my point.

God's holiness in Scripture is repeatedly seen as his utter faithfulness to his covenant (note the benevolence here). Instead of looking at historical theology with the sole intent of finding something you disagree with, maybe you ought to look for something you can affirm? There is so much out there, so many different opinions, but there are still some opinions that are more plausible than others. These should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, I am not willing to use the word for "fear" when describing God's motivation for kicking out the rebellious couple. What, from the original author's perspective, would a Creator-God have to fear from a couple of covenant-breaking humans? What does a grown human have to fear from an insurrectionist infant? (to put it in perspective). Absolutely nothing. So, we must look elsewhere, as I have, thus providing a more plausible alternative. An omnipotent God is not bound by his omnipotence.

[edited to respond to Mike] Mike, I think it depicts a God who responds, wrestles and desires things for his creation (e.g., "Where are you?" meant to induce them to come to him, not the other way around. Think hierarchy. I know this is hard for the egalitarian West to do.). None of these are incompatible with omnipotence or omniscience.


Regards,

CJD

mike_decock

What I'm trying to get at is that the depiction you perceived is determined by the depiction you expect. My argument is that one wouldn't see the YHWH of Gen 3-4 as omnipotent and omniscient if they weren't reading it as a depiction of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

That's why I'm asking you to consider those points on their own merits without seeking an interpretation which fits your theology.

-Mike...

Hawkingfan

I think that God's arbitrary preference for Abel's offering over Cain's isn't benevolent at all, unless, of course, you consider unwarranted favoritism benevolent.

Mageth

What does a grown human have to fear from an insurrectionist infant? (to put it in perspective).

Obviously coming from someone who's never seen the movie It's Alive.

YHWHtruth

Good news from Finland!

Several interesting comments here

Did the Good News Bible make "God out to be a liar"?

"Frequently in Hebrew, the idiom BeYOM..., 'on the day that...,' followed by an infinitive does not mean exactly twenty-four hours or the daylight hours, as in English, but simply means an indefinite period of time.

since there is no specific word for 'when' in
Hebrew, the expression 'on the day that' is often used. This is
usually best translated as 'when.' E.g., the very beginning of this
story (vs. 4b) says literally, 'On the day that the Lord God made
the earth and the heavens,' etc. TEV translates correctly thus:
'When the LORD God made the universe,' etc. Likewise the passage which we are considering, the end of verse 17, has the same idiom, saying literally: 'for on the day that you eat of it you will surely die,' but more correctly, 'when you eat of it you will surely die.' 'When' is very close here to meaning 'if'; hence 'if you eat of it you will surely die' is probably the best rendering.
did use 'if' - 'if you do [eat], you will die the same day." TEV
had a good translation, but added the three fatal words, 'the
day,' and thus made God out to be a liar, agreeing with 'the
snake' in 3:4. This may be the worst blunder in the entire work."


The Word of God - A Guide to English Versions of the Bible_ W.F.
Stinespring (Edited by Lloyd R. Bailey) p. 120, 1979

Max

CJD

Mike wrote: "That's why I'm asking you to consider those points on their own merits without seeking an interpretation which fits your theology."

This, of course, can cut both ways.

But you must at least entertain the idea, Mike, that I have studied these things on their own merits, and have subsequently shaped my theology according to a reading that does not totally twist the text (like Mr. Bodiless). Why do you presume the negative over against the positive?

Secondly, I would only say that Genesis 1–4 presupposes God's creativity, and, insofar as it brought order to chaos, shows his benevolence. My point was that these things are not incompatible with such systematic doctrines as "omnipotence" or "omniscience." In other words, looking at the text for what it is, I find nothing in it that precludes such attributes.

One final point for you to consider, Mike, is that we can only relatively look at a text "on its own merit." We will always bring some preconceived baggage to a reading. That is why certain readings are more plausible than others (e.g., mine vs. Mr. Bodiless'), but not, I repeat, not infallible. I have remained true to the spirit of the text (nonetheless carrying Christian presuppositions), while many others, not seeing the logs in their own eyes, come to the text just to twist it, and then presume to fault Xians accordingly.

Hawkingfan wrote: "I think that God's arbitrary preference for Abel's offering over Cain's isn't benevolent at all, unless, of course, you consider unwarranted favoritism benevolent."

1. First, capriciousness is theologically objectionable. So, if God's preference was arbitrary, then you would be right. But this does not match with God's concern to explain the failure to Cain in 4:6–7: "Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast? Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must suppress it." A capricious God would not be concerned with correcting Cain.

2. But what was God correcting? This point you have missed entirely, Hawkingfan. Genesis 4:4b–5a reads: "And the Lord was pleased with Abel and his offering, but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased." The key to Cain's failure is found in the narrator's careful descriptions of Cain and Abel's tributes. Cain brings "some of the fruit." There is no indication that these fruits are the first or the best. Compare this to the narrator's description of Abel's tribute: "But Abel brought some of the firstborn of his flock—even the fattest of them." An obvious slant, no? Put differently, Cain's tribute is mere tokenism—to appease the God. Looking externally religious means nothing if the heart does not follow suit. Does this rectify your concern that God looks "arbitrary," or that his preference is "unwarranted favoritism"?

For anyone interested: Where have I not engaged these "points on their own merits, [instead] seeking an interpretation which fits [my] theology"?

Regards,

CJD

The bishops all have sworn to shed their blood
To prove it is true the hare chews the cud.
Oh bishops, doctors, divines, beware—
Weak is the faith that hangs on a hare.

mike_decock

Of course. I'm not trying to convince you that my interpretation is the best, I'm just trying to demonstrate that it is plausible.

I'm really not trying to make presumptions, nor am I trying to twist the text.

The verses which describe creation don't necessarily preclude such attributes but I don't think it dictates those attributes, either. It's the later elements I was focusing on. I don't know which sections Documentary Hypothesis attributes to different authors, but that may be something to consider as well.

Whose presuppositions are bigger "logs"? I'm really not trying twist the text into something it isn't.

I disagree. Greek, Roman and even Jewish theology allows for capriciousness in their theology. In Christian theology it is objectionable. I think that's why you fail to see a less-than omnipotent/omniscient depiction of Yahweh as plausible.

Statements like this:

I just don't think you'd interpret it that way without a presupposition of omnipotence and omniscience.

-Mike...