Eden. Original Sin or Original Virtue?

[rusra02]

You have it all *** backwards.

The serpent dis not seduce and spoke the truth. With the knowledge of the tree, as God himself confirms in this myth, A & E did gain the ability to decide for themselves what was good and what was evil.

Moral independence apart from God is a good idea when God is a genocidal son murdering prick.

You might note how no Christian in the free world is advocating for God's law as the law of the land. My guess is that no one wants to stone their unruly children or people who wear two different cloths.

"Adam and Eve already knew it was bad to disobey God."

This is too foolish to let go.

Tell us how they could have already known that eating of the tree was evil when they knew nothing of good and evil.

Regards
DL

If the wicked spirit using the serpent spoke the truth, why are Adam and Eve not still alive? He told Eve: "You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, you will be like God, knowing good and bad." (Genesis 3:4,5) It is clear to me that Eve knew God's law and it's penalty for violation. "At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die." ( Genesis 3:2,3) Thus, both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God's command. The serpent offered Eve the prospect of deciding for herself what is good or bad, something most people today insist is their right. By grasping at independence from God, Adam and Eve brought disaster upon themselves and us. (Romans 5:12)

 

[Tumah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Levi

http://gnosticwarrior.com/serpent.html

The "race of the Dragons" or Serpents means the Wise Adepts. The names Hivi or Hivite, and Levi—signify a "Serpent"; and the Hivites or Serpent-tribe of Palestine, were, like all Levites and Ophites of Israel, initiated Ministers to the temples, i.e., Occultists, as are the priests of Quetzo Cohuatl. The Gibeonites whom Joshua assigned to the service of the sanctuary were Hivites.

I recognize that the tribe of Dan also used a serpent emblem but that just emphasizes how much the old Jews respected the serpent.

Regards
DL

I don't see anywhere in the link to the tribe of Levi anything about a snake or serpent.
The word "Hivi (חוי)", does mean "snake" in Aramaic. But the word "Levi (לוי)" comes from the Hebrew word "to escort".
Joshua's assignation of them was as water carriers and wood cutters. This is the most menial of tasks.

 

[Tumah]

They were not bright enough.

Regards
DL

Whether they were Jewish by heritage, doesn't automatically mean that they were familiar with Jewish theology. Or that they didn't intend to change it to fit their agenda.

 

[metis]

If the wicked spirit using the serpent spoke the truth, why are Adam and Eve not still alive? He told Eve: "You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, you will be like God, knowing good and bad." (Genesis 3:4,5) It is clear to me that Eve knew God's law and it's penalty for violation. "At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die." ( Genesis 3:2,3) Thus, both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God's command. The serpent offered Eve the prospect of deciding for herself what is good or bad, something most people today insist is their right. By grasping at independence from God, Adam and Eve brought disaster upon themselves and us. (Romans 5:12)

To me, that's illogical for different reasons:

1.we don't penalize people for that which their great grandparents may have done, and if God is merciful, why would He kill you because of some event that happened thousands to millions of years ago with two people you don't even know?

2.the story really doesn't make sense on the literal level but can make sense on the allegorical level.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

2.the story really doesn't make sense on the literal level but can make sense on the allegorical level.

Many things can make sense on the allegorical level whether or not they were intended as allegory. (Are you familiar with the term PaRDes?)

I'd be curious to hear (a) what you feel doesn't make sense, and (b) whether you believe that the story was intended as allegory.

 

[rusra02]

To me, that's illogical for different reasons:

1.we don't penalize people for that which their great grandparents may have done, and if God is merciful, why would He kill you because of some event that happened thousands to millions of years ago with two people you don't even know?

2.the story really doesn't make sense on the literal level but can make sense on the allegorical level.

If Jehovah had executed Adam and Eve immediately after their sin, I am convinced none of us would have ever lived. I believe God purposed to show mercy to Adam's descendants, while upholding his perfect justice and righteousness. The life we have now, though short and troubled, is an undeserved gift from God, in my view. More important is God's promise to restore us to perfect life, through Christ's ransom sacrifice. (John 3:16) It was some 6,000 years ago the events in Eden played out, a long time from our standpoint, but not from God's.

 

[metis]

Many things can make sense on the allegorical level whether or not they were intended as allegory. (Are you familiar with the term PaRDes?)

I'd be curious to hear (a) what you feel doesn't make sense, and (b) whether you believe that the story was intended as allegory.

a. Because there's simply not one shred of objective evidence to suggest that it even could be true, the fossil evidence indicates that it cannot be true, plus I haven't run across any talking serpents lately.

b. There's no way possible to know whether the author(s) wrote it as allegory or visualized it as being historical. Either way, as Joseph Campbell often stated, "and the myth became reality". [as you most assuredly must know, "myth" in this context does not mean nor imply falsehood].

As to the concept of "ParDes", I was only vaguely familiar (I couldn't remember what it referred to) with the term so I had to Google it.

 

[metis]

If Jehovah had executed Adam and Eve immediately after their sin, I am convinced none of us would have ever lived. I believe God purposed to show mercy to Adam's descendants, while upholding his perfect justice and righteousness. The life we have now, though short and troubled, is an undeserved gift from God, in my view. More important is God's promise to restore us to perfect life, through Christ's ransom sacrifice. (John 3:16) It was some 6,000 years ago the events in Eden played out, a long time from our standpoint, but not from God's.

You might check out my post #67, although I highly doubt you'll agree with it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

a. Because there's simply not one shred of objective evidence to suggest that it even could be true, the fossil evidence indicates that it cannot be true, plus I haven't run across any talking serpents lately.

I don't see how that's relevant. The question - at least my question - is whether the narrative "made sense" to those hearing it retold at the city gates. I suspect that it did.

b. There's no way possible to know whether the author(s) wrote it as allegory or visualized it as being historical. Either way, as Joseph Campbell often stated, "and the myth became reality". [as you most assuredly must know, "myth" in this context does not mean nor imply falsehood].

Historical is the wrong term. At issue is whether or not the narrative was envisioned as being, first and foremost, theologized etiology.

 

[metis]

I don't see how that's relevant. The question - at least my question - is whether the narrative "made sense" to those hearing it retold at the city gates. I suspect that it did.

I agree, but what I said in response to rusra dealt with today, trying to look at this objectively.

Historical is the wrong term. At issue is whether or not the narrative was envisioned as being, first and foremost, theologized etiology.

How it was envisioned wasn't what I was referring to, but how it may be envisioned today is.

 

[Greatest I am]

If the wicked spirit using the serpent spoke the truth, why are Adam and Eve not still alive? He told Eve: "You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, you will be like God, knowing good and bad." (Genesis 3:4,5) It is clear to me that Eve knew God's law and it's penalty for violation. "At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die." ( Genesis 3:2,3) Thus, both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God's command. The serpent offered Eve the prospect of deciding for herself what is good or bad, something most people today insist is their right. By grasping at independence from God, Adam and Eve brought disaster upon themselves and us. (Romans 5:12)

That is the garbage Christian dogma that ignores scriptures.

The following 5 quotes are why I call what God did murder, if he actually needs a blood sacrifice. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see, especially those last two quotes, all are saved without a sacrifice.

---------

Let me back us up just a tad.
The wicked spirit you speak of was put in Eden by God. Scriptures also say that Eve was deceived by that spirit with God's own power of deception flowing through that spirit. God would have known that Eve could not resist yet still put it there to deceive Eve.

Tell us why God would do that if he did not want Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't see anywhere in the link to the tribe of Levi anything about a snake or serpent.
The word "Hivi (חוי)", does mean "snake" in Aramaic. But the word "Levi (לוי)" comes from the Hebrew word "to escort".
Joshua's assignation of them was as water carriers and wood cutters. This is the most menial of tasks.

Well, if logic won't convince you that they would not use an emblem they disliked, I will have to agree to disagree.

It is not really important to the O.P.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Whether they were Jewish by heritage, doesn't automatically mean that they were familiar with Jewish theology. Or that they didn't intend to change it to fit their agenda.

Hmmm.

If I recall correctly, all Jews at that time had to hear the written Torah once a year. It was the glue, so to speak of Jewry.

I do agree that Christians had their own agenda and it was not a moral one by todays standards. I see it as an attempt to vilify the older serpent cults and make women subservient to men.

Christianity remains a homophobic and misogynous creed.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

To me, that's illogical for different reasons:

1.we don't penalize people for that which their great grandparents may have done, and if God is merciful, why would He kill you because of some event that happened thousands to millions of years ago with two people you don't even know?

2.the story really doesn't make sense on the literal level but can make sense on the allegorical level.

Correct. It is a Jewish tale and all their tales are subject to midrash to make sense. Christians, being idol worshipers of the WORD, will never know the right moral to the story. Jews do. These gays, better said that some Jews do.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If Jehovah had executed Adam and Eve immediately after their sin, I am convinced none of us would have ever lived. I believe God purposed to show mercy to Adam's descendants, while upholding his perfect justice and righteousness. The life we have now, though short and troubled, is an undeserved gift from God, in my view. More important is God's promise to restore us to perfect life, through Christ's ransom sacrifice. (John 3:16) It was some 6,000 years ago the events in Eden played out, a long time from our standpoint, but not from God's.

Hmm. Better to kill two instead of waiting and using genocide on the whole planet.

Regards
DL

 

[Tumah]

Hmmm.

If I recall correctly, all Jews at that time had to hear the written Torah once a year. It was the glue, so to speak of Jewry.

Of course you understand that what Jews have to do and what Jews do do not necessarily coincide all the time, right?

I do agree that Christians had their own agenda and it was not a moral one by todays standards. I see it as an attempt to vilify the older serpent cults and make women subservient to men.

Christianity remains a homophobic and misogynous creed.

Regards
DL

I suggest that you don't know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity.

 

[Tumah]

Well, if logic won't convince you that they would not use an emblem they disliked, I will have to agree to disagree.

It is not really important to the O.P.

Regards
DL

Interestingly, I think I am being quite logical, and am wondering why you refuse to accept my logic.

 

[Greatest I am]

Of course you understand that what Jews have to do and what Jews do do not necessarily coincide all the time, right?


I suggest that you don't know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity.

In that day, to not follow the tribe and its rules was dangerous. Good that you do not deny their duty to hear the Torah yearly.

You are correct that Judaism, especially all the sects that fractured away from what was once one religion, is harder to know than Christianity.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Interestingly, I think I am being quite logical, and am wondering why you refuse to accept my logic.

For the same reason you do not accept mine. Bias.

Regards
DL

 

[Tumah]

In that day, to not follow the tribe and its rules was dangerous. Good that you do not deny their duty to hear the Torah yearly.

You are correct that Judaism, especially all the sects that fractured away from what was once one religion, is harder to know than Christianity.

Regards
DL

To not follow was deadly? Have you read the books of the prophets? Not following the rules is the theme of most of them