two choices

[Mr Walker]

I agree. Now please find in the narrative the part where it says they did actually eat from every tree - except the Tree forbidden to them.

"Could" and "did" are two very different concepts. While you, and other believers, may rationalise your interpretation by superimposing "did" where "could" lies, the narrative is silent on this.

Again, I agree. But, again, there is a difference in "avoiding imminent death" and "immortality". Again, the believer has to superimpose "immortality" onto the act of avoiding an imminent death, when such meaning is absent from the narrative.

PA,

I appreciate another attempt to rationalise a part of the Genesis narrative based on an allegorical interpretation, but God never mentions their curse when expelling them from Eden. You have the right, of course, to interpet the narrative as you will to support your belief - as does MW - but inserting what doesn't exist in the narrative into your interpretation does not make a strong claim for that interpretation being what the author intended.

I am not an believer, nor do i see the genesis story as anymore than a useful allegorical creation myth but i am a rationalist/logical thinker and writer; and i do deconstruct stories as a part of my profession. So, in reading genesis, ALL the evidences available suggest adam and eve were "immortal while in the garden" More than that, other conditions pertained eg women would give birth without pain and suffering while in the garden Animals were at peace with each other. Adam and eve ate only a nuts and berries diet . The narrative is not silent on this issue. god actually says that, given immortality and the knowledge of good and evil, men would become as gods And THUS he removed them from access to the tree of life and set cherubim to guard the gates to the garden specifically to stop further access to the tree of life.

If they were not already eating the fruit of life, and thus "immortal, then god would not have to point out that, if they ate of the tree of knowdge the consequence for both of them would be death (because if not at that time 'immortal" they would be going to die anyway whether they ate of the tree of knowldge or not.)

Adam and eve did not die an imminent death or anything like it they lived for another thousand years or so and had many generations of children after being removed form eden.. Given that the writers of the story would not deliberately make their god out to be a liar, the only logical conclusion for a reader is that god meant that adam and eve would now eventually die when before they would never have This is what indeed happened in the story. The intention of any author is seen within hte purpose outcomes protagonists coherency and contextualisation of any narrative.

Given that genesis is a creation allegory written by man about a god, and his realtionship to his creations, one must interpret ALL the content through the writer's known culture, knowledge/data base, intent, beliefs etc.

[Mr Walker]

Mr. Walker. King james verson had both the tree of knowldge and the tree of life as none eatables.

When eve ate from the tree she did not become ashamed, until adam ate. It was something they both had to do. If there was a lilith before eve, maybe she ate of the tree and adam didn't.

Not in my king james version, although i am not at home to confirm this. From my memory ONLY the tree of knowledge was barred. "Of all other fruits.... shall thee eat" (to paraphrase)

just looked up the actual words

"of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Edited September 15, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

I am not an believer, nor do i see the genesis story as anymore than a useful allegorical creation myth but i am a rationalist/logical thinker and writer; and i do deconstruct stories as a part of my profession. So, in reading genesis, ALL the evidences available suggest adam and eve were "immortal while in the garden"

What "evidences"?

If they were not already eating the fruit of life, and thus "immortal, then god would not have to point out that, if they ate of the tree of knowdge the consequence for both of them would be death (because if not at that time 'immortal" they would be going to die anyway whether they ate of the tree of knowldge or not.)

If someone were to warn you off doing something "else you would die", it does not mean you are immortal, it only means you are currently alive and taking that action would kill you. There is no 'rational logic' behind your intepretation that God's words meant A&E were immortal, only the need to justify your belief they were.

Adam and eve did not die an imminent death or anything like it they lived for another thousand years or so and had many generations of children after being removed form eden.. Given that the writers of the story would not deliberately make their god out to be a liar, the only logical conclusion for a reader is that god meant that adam and eve would now eventually die when before they would never have.

No, the logical conclusion is that everything that would have happened in idyllic conditions in Eden, now instead happened in non-idyllic conditions outside Eden. Apart from that transfer from idyllic to non-idyllic environment, and the curse of work/childbirth God levied upon A&E, nothing else in the conditions of A&E's lives changed - unless you impose into the narrative what it doesn't state.

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA,

I appreciate another attempt to rationalise a part of the Genesis narrative based on an allegorical interpretation, but God never mentions their curse when expelling them from Eden. You have the right, of course, to interpet the narrative as you will to support your belief - as does MW - but inserting what doesn't exist in the narrative into your interpretation does not make a strong claim for that interpretation being what the author intended.

Are you sure the curse was intended to play no part in the interpretation? I would disagree with that.

[Leonardo]

Are you sure the curse was intended to play no part in the interpretation? I would disagree with that.

That's not what I implied. My own reading of it is the curse God set upon Adam and Eve defined the conditions their life would take outside Eden, but had nothing to say regarding the duration of that life. Neither was the duration of their life defined by anything related in the narrative of their time in Eden.

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

"Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you shall eat the plants of the field;"

These are the curses God levies upon Eve in Genesis 3:16 and Adam in 3:17. They make no suggestion that the duration of Adam or Eve's lives are shortened in any way either via the curse, or their expulsion from Eden. If, as some claim, it was continuing access to the fruit from the Tree of Life that granted perpetual life, then it would not have been necessary for the narrative to make the point that eating that fruit (and the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) granted likeness to God - because if A&E had already eaten of that fruit they would already "be as one of us".

There is no part of the entire narrative that suggests the duration of Adam or Eve's lives were affected by their expulsion from Eden, or the curse bestowed upon them. So placing an interpretation such as you suggest is not warranted by what is written or implied in that narrative.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Leonardo

[Jodie.Lynne]

It is rather obvious what the tale tells us: OBEY or be PUNISHED.

really quite simple when you remove all the dross.

[danielost]

One thing I just noticed from adam to noah humans were herbivores. Because after the flood god gives noah permission to eat flesh but not the blod/life of them.

[danielost]

There is no mention of how long adam and eve were in the garden or when they started to celebrate birthdays.

[Leonardo]

One thing I just noticed from adam to noah humans were herbivores. Because after the flood god gives noah permission to eat flesh but not the blod/life of them.

Then why was Abel a shepherd?

The answer to that is that sacrifices to God were supposed to be burnt offerings of flesh and blood. God is the carnivore and Man the herbivore. Together, they make an omnivore.

Make of that what you will.

[danielost]

Then why was Abel a shepherd?

The answer to that is that sacrifices to God were supposed to be burnt offerings of flesh and blood. God is the carnivore and Man the herbivore. Together, they make an omnivore.

Make of that what you will.

Then why was Abel a shepherd?

The answer to that is that sacrifices to God were supposed to be burnt offerings of flesh and blood. God is the carnivore and Man the herbivore. Together, they make an omnivore.

Make of that what you will.

Most sheep are kept for their wool. Few end up onj the dinner table. Thy could have also gotten milk/cheesse from them.

[Kaa-Tzik]

One thing I just noticed from adam to noah humans were herbivores. Because after the flood god gives noah permission to eat flesh but not the blod/life of them.

Herbivores do not have canine teeth, carnivores and omnivores do. We have canine teeth because we are omnivores, just like our ape cousins.

[AtlantisRises]

Most sheep are kept for their wool. Few end up onj the dinner table. Thy could have also gotten milk/cheesse from them.

That's not true at all. Sheep are eaten all over the world in large quantities. Indeed in Australia it is probably consumed more then any other meat. Assuming an American diet on an ancient culture is just foolish.

[danielost]

It is rather obvious what the tale tells us: OBEY or be PUNISHED.

really quite simple when you remove all the dross.

Actually it was adam obey or everyone would be punished. That was lifted with the resurection of christ.

[danielost]

Herbivores do not have canine teeth, carnivores and omnivores do. We have canine teeth because we are omnivores, just like our ape cousins.

The gorilla is a herbivore. It has huge canines. Chimps eat meat. Humans eat meat, but our canines are too small to use as weapons.

[Jodie.Lynne]

Adam in the OT, Yeshua in the New, still the same old story: one person sacrificed for the good of all.

Can we say: scapegoat?

[danielost]

That's not true at all. Sheep are eaten all over the world in large quantities. Indeed in Australia it is probably consumed more then any other meat. Assuming an American diet on an ancient culture is just foolish.

But, if you a herbavore you can still use sheep for their wool and milk.

One of the things that happened after the flood is god made the animals scared of us.

[Kaa-Tzik]

The gorilla is a herbivore. It has huge canines. Chimps eat meat. Humans eat meat, but our canines are too small to use as weapons.

Gorillas are indeed herbivores, but the fact that they have canines shows that in the past they ate meat. The reason they still have canines is for threat posturing and fighting. Our canines became much smaller over our evolutionary journey to becoming homo sapiens because we became tool users and gained the ability to strip flesh of animals and cook it. We still eat meat, but we just don't need canines anymore. Yes, gorillas have some tool using ability, but poking sticks into termite mounds is a very long way from our abilities. Gorillas don't make spear or guns, so they still need their canines to fight.

[Mr Walker]

What "evidences"?

If someone were to warn you off doing something "else you would die", it does not mean you are immortal, it only means you are currently alive and taking that action would kill you. There is no 'rational logic' behind your intepretation that God's words meant A&E were immortal, only the need to justify your belief they were.

No, the logical conclusion is that everything that would have happened in idyllic conditions in Eden, now instead happened in non-idyllic conditions outside Eden. Apart from that transfer from idyllic to non-idyllic environment, and the curse of work/childbirth God levied upon A&E, nothing else in the conditions of A&E's lives changed - unless you impose into the narrative what it doesn't state.

You are then arguing my point. That while in eden, adam and eve would not die because there was nothing to kill them. ie they were immortal. Genesis says they were removed from eden purely to stop them eating from the tree of life,not to put them into a hazardous environment which might result in their death. It was removal from the tree of lifewhich changed their lives and why it was necessary for god to put an angel to guard the enterance to eden.

Some analysts believ that the tree of life was a symbolical refernce to god himself, who in the bible is the source of all life. Separate from god all humans are mortal. United with god all humans are immortal. This is the basic message of the old and new testament and of christianity.

[Mr Walker]

It is rather obvious what the tale tells us: OBEY or be PUNISHED.

really quite simple when you remove all the dross.

Wrong choice of alternatives. Obey the rules or suffer the natural consequences Eg dont walk off a cliff or you will die. The OT is a set of morality tales designed to teach peole how to behave. The behaviors all had good social and logicla purposes Religion and belief simply added a powerful motivator to rational logical laws.

Even to day people who live by gods laws have longer happier and healthier outcomes than those who do not. One neve need experince guilt anger pain depression or lonliness for example if one folows gods laws and believes in god.And they will never get into anytrouble with the police or nehgbours/community.

[Jodie.Lynne]

Wrong choice of alternatives. Obey the rules or suffer the natural consequences Eg dont walk off a cliff or you will die. The OT is a set of morality tales designed to teach peole how to behave. The behaviors all had good social and logicla purposes Religion and belief simply added a powerful motivator to rational logical laws.

Even to day people who live by gods laws have longer happier and healthier outcomes than those who do not. One neve need experince guilt anger pain depression or lonliness for example if one folows gods laws and believes in god.And they will never get into anytrouble with the police or nehgbours/community.

I do admire your sense of reality mister.

Even to day people who live by gods laws have longer happier and healthier outcomes than those who do not.

And, of course, you have statistics and the data to back this claim up, correct? Not just your personal sense of fulfillment and "easy living", but documented, verifiable sources, yes?

[Arbenol]

Even to day people who live by gods laws have longer happier and healthier outcomes than those who do not. One neve need experince guilt anger pain depression or lonliness for example if one folows gods laws and believes in god.And they will never get into anytrouble with the police or nehgbours/community.

The other day I caught my neighbour and his wife wearing clothes that were clearly made of two different cloths. Do you think the Police would be OK with me organising a public stoning? (I think a street party would be a really good thing for the local community).

[Mr Walker]

I do admire your sense of reality mister.

And, of course, you have statistics and the data to back this claim up, correct? Not just your personal sense of fulfillment and "easy living", but documented, verifiable sources, yes?

Of course. That is the point I am making with the numerous statistics and sites presented, but it is comon sense and fits all that is known about basic human psychology and biology.

[Mr Walker]

The other day I caught my neighbour and his wife wearing clothes that were clearly made of two different cloths. Do you think the Police would be OK with me organising a public stoning? (I think a street party would be a really good thing for the local community).

No, but if you caught them out as pedophiles or drug distributors to local children etc .(ie breaking modern laws and social expectaions, then I would expect you to go through the due process of lawwhether you thoughttheir activities were reasonable or not) What would you do if your neighbours went nude around the local neighbourhood and why? Persopnaly i find nudity sensible and non offensive but the law is the law.

I said gods laws, not the laws created by hman societies in response to their belief in god

IE First. Love yourself

Second, love one another as you love yourslef.

Realise that we are all one including our natural world, and all one with god. Know, especially, that you are no more important (nor less important ) than any other person in the world. Your life, your rights, your desires are no more critical, or worthy, than anyone elses. You have no right to do anything at the cost of/to another

Know that happiness is a state of mind not gained through external material things, but through a sense of inner realisation discipline and practice.

Third, live and act on those principles in everything, even when it apparently only affects yourself.

Eg live aware of self, of nature, and of god.

Act knowing the consequences of your actions on self, on others, on nature and on god, of every act you take (and every thought you have)

Edited September 16, 2013 by Mr Walker

[MorbidVampireica]

Believe what you will but I personally don't believe in sin

[Arbenol]

No, but if you caught them out as pedophiles or drug distributors to local children etc .(ie breaking modern laws and social expectaions, then I would expect you to go through the due process of lawwhether you thoughttheir activities were reasonable or not) What would you do if your neighbours went nude around the local neighbourhood and why? Persopnaly i find nudity sensible and non offensive but the law is the law.

I was being slightly facetious. But thanks for the advice.

I said gods laws, not the laws created by hman societies in response to their belief in god

IE First. Love yourself

Second, love one another as you love yourslef.

Realise that we are all one including our natural world, and all one with god. Know, especially, that you are no more important (nor less important ) than any other person in the world. Your life, your rights, your desires are no more critical, or worthy, than anyone elses. You have no right to do anything at the cost of/to another

Know that happiness is a state of mind not gained through external material things, but through a sense of inner realisation discipline and practice.

Third, live and act on those principles in everything, even when it apparently only affects yourself.

Eg live aware of self, of nature, and of god.

Act knowing the consequences of your actions on self, on others, on nature and on god, of every act you take (and every thought you have)

Apart from the odd mention of god, what you've written there could be viewed as a natural law. One that, if followed by members of society, would produce the best outcomes for that society. Totally sensible and rational - no need to invoke any supernatural imposition of law.

So, Biblical laws are "created by h(u)man societies in response to their belief in god", and God's law is indistinguishable from natural (for want of a better term) law. Therefore, the idea of 'God's law' appears obsolete.