winstonjen

Why that tree? They could have chosen between Branch A and Branch B on another tree for food, and they could have chosen between swimming and not swimming, talking and not talking, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Spaz

Good thing the serpent didn't get eve to eat from that tree of eternal life first, then god woulda been really fucked

winstonjen

Knowing god, the tree wouldn't really be of 'eternal' life, but '500 years per apple.'

Spaz

People don't really honestly believe that this really happened do they? I mean maybe they do when they're young, but when they're educated and presented with reality they still believe it? It has a talking snake and things like eternal life and knowledge coming from fruit, c'mon. You're telling me that my knowledge of good and evil came from something that plants developed so that animals would eat their seeds and shit them out somewhere else in order for more plants to grow? It boggles the mind.

Infidelettante

Very good question Peter, Let me throw my Paganized two cents in. As you know the entirity of the OT is the efforts of the Yahweist temple cult to rid the Hebrews of the worship of other gods. The second creation story was too well known for the priests to leave out. They wrote the first story and took out the talking snake and the fateful fruit and the God who walks and talks to people. After all, if you can talk to God what do you need priests for.

Here is how I interpret the story so it makes sense. It is the story of how Goddess gave humanity it's freedom from from the demiurge Yahwey. Eve is Goddess as Mothergod. The fruit is Goddess as Maiden and the Serpent is Goddess as Crone.

Mothergod is mother of all things. She gives birth to all things at every moment. Maiden is potential. All possibilities exist in her. Crone is wisdom, truth, and law, among other things. She takes us all in death and renders us again into potentiality that we can be rebirthed from Mothergod. This is not the same as personal reincarnation but that we can skip that.

In Genesis Goddess takes on God by exposing his lies and foolishness. She showed that one did not need to eat the fruit to gain it's powers. Eve displayed the knowledge of good and evil before she ate the fruit just by deciding to eat it. She chose a course of action that, by God's words she should not have been able to take.

Maiden is the fruit. In her are all potentialities and possibilities. No wonder God couldn't let Adam have the fruit! Here we see that we have to eat the fruit to use it's powers. We must be willing to accept the potential in ourselves. We must make the possibilities as much a part of us as the food we eat.

The Crone is wisdom and truth. The serpent knew God was lying and told the truth about the garden. It is through Crone that we are able to question the motives and actions of God. We are able to take our own path free from his tyranny.

It was a woman who stood up to God and won our freedom. It was a woman who gave us our humanity. It was a woman who changed dirt into a man and set him on a path to the stars. The only god who will ever exist will be human.

Now before everyone jumps on me this is a myth. It is just my take on a myth. For what it's worth. A myth. A very important myth as it is one of the foundations of Western culture but it is only a myth. For what it's worth.

JT

mike_decock

That means that they didn't have free will until they ate from that tree. If they didn't have free will before eating, they didn't freely choose to eat. That means they are not morally responsible for eating from the tree.

Thanks for clearing that up, Magus.

-Mike...

mark9950

Who wrote the Bible man or God

If man wrote the bible than there will be anomolies

If a God wrote the bible than anomolies should not exist because it is perfect.

Think about it.

I am no fan of ronald reagan the great communicator,but God not is no where near a communicator as ronald reagan.
(no disrespect to ronald reagan)

Also look at the verses that almost 100% prove that the earth is flat as perceived by the hebrews.

apparently God created the earth as a sphere.

Felstorm

What? No piggy back rides?

CJD

Just a few suggestions . . .

Felstorm: "Okay, this is the very same physical/spiritual waffling I mentioned earlier."

* Saying it does not make it so, Felstorm. Show me the waffling. Show me the violence done to the text. Arguing against your so-called "literal" interpretation is tantamount to solipsism.

Felstorm: "But it still stand to reason that, one god was depriving mankind of knowledge, keeping them in ignorance. How is that "good"?"

* This reading is fanciful, at best. The knowledge in question is omniscience, not any kind of knowledge. Now would be a good time to offer a suggestion to the arguing atheist. In order to make a bit of sense in arguing with me, you must show me how Hebraically the knowledge of good and evil is not a merism, how the text does not lead us in this direction. In other words, answering that you simply disagree is just that—simple. If it makes you feel better to trash the plain sense of the text for such lame reasons, go ahead. So long as you know there is an Xian out there who does not, and whose reading, I daresay, is far more respectable with relation to literary criticism, etc. Put another way, prove that the knowledge of good and evil is not a merism.

Back to your question. The text intends to give the impression that 1) As a father to a child, God withholds from mankind something that is in his/her best interests; 2) (and this is speculative) God intends to test mankind before allowing them to enter into an eternal sabbath rest (the tree of Life).

The serpent spoke a partial truth at best, Felstorm, and that is univocal with lying. How can you disagree with this? Further, it makes no difference if they were "mortal" to begin with; the point is that if they had passed that test, then they would have passed into the immortal without dying first. Finally, all this talk of "subjected to morals," etc., entirely misunderstands how God is represented in Scripture. God "is" morals, just as morals are God. One cannot be subjected to something if that something is part and parcel of his/her own nature. What you are speaking of when talking about subjugation to morals, etc., seems to me to be a subjugation of God by your standards. Once again, a line of reasoning all too close to the serpent's.

The following is not meant to be malicious in any way. It amazes me that a chap like Kirby would entertain such a ridiculous question (unless he meant it for fun). He must be an early Xianity guy (read: a bit lost regarding the Tanak). Kirby, what makes you think the author even cared if someone came away with that understanding of the text? (Not to mention the implausibility that a pre-modern person would read the text in this way). Surely to the author such a person was non-existent, that is, outside of the covenant community, and therefore completely irrelevant. IF perchance the author did percieve the plausibility of this reading, then I would rather think that it would have been used by the author to separate the God-haters from the God-fearers. Can we go much further than that?

Regards,

keyser_soze

OUCH!!!

Put a bandaid on that one magus. Also, before you get any further, consider that someone had to LET the serpent into the garden...you know, because an omniscient being would have known some serpent was walking in to tempt. But then again, an O being would already know the conclusion to all the process anyway. Oh wait, I forget...you say he must have *toned* down his powers so that he could see how it played out and give us that free will. Darn, I forget that bit of gymnastics everytime. Yep, I sure think we needed that god to sacrifice himself(temporarily of course) to himself, to achieve forgiveness with a blood sacrifice to satiate himself...so that the forgiveness that he would get from himself, to give to himself, for something that he arbitrarily decided to punish mankind for in the first place....damn, I keep getting confused.