flaw in genesis 3

[hey_amigo]

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

Q: HOW DID EVE SEE THE TREE IF HER EYES WERE CLOSED?

 

[Willamena]

Haha.

 

[Carico]

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

Q: HOW DID EVE SEE THE TREE IF HER EYES WERE CLOSED?

When the bible talks about opening one's eyes, it's talking about seeing the world differently than before. It's not talking about someone's eyelids being shut. Unbelievers are so funny.

 

[DadBurnett]

Who said her physical eyes were closed?
Consider what Paul said in Ephesians 1 about "eyes of understanding..."

 

[Humanistheart]

Genesis 3


Q: HOW DID EVE SEE THE TREE IF HER EYES WERE CLOSED?

Assuming this isn't a joke, it was a metaphorical eye opining, or enlightenment moment. The better question is how can this be considered a sin? Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate. Just as young innocent children cannot comprehend they're actions are sins, and thus are not considered sins until the child reaches the coming of age, why would two humans, Adam and eve, who had no knowledge of right and wrong be said to have sinned? The idea of the 'first sin' is thus a logical absurdity and this character 'god' punishes because he's a sadist, just as only a sick person could beat a child for some action they don't like.

 

[gnostic]

Assuming this isn't a joke, it was a metaphorical eye opining, or enlightenment moment. The better question is how can this be considered a sin? Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate. Just as young innocent children cannot comprehend they're actions are sins, and thus are not considered sins until the child reaches the coming of age, why would two humans, Adam and eve, who had no knowledge of right and wrong be said to have sinned? The idea of the 'first sin' is thus a logical absurdity and this character 'god' punishes because he's a sadist, just as only a sick person could beat a child for some action they don't like.

The same sort of questions I have asked in the past topics.

One of the answers you will get, is free-will. And another is they were being punished for the actual eating of the forbidden fruit; their punishments were for disobeying god's commandment.

There are flaws in those answers.

First of, since they don't know right from wrong, good from bad, then Eve could not possibly know if the talking serpent was lying to her or not.

God warned Adam directly about the consequences of eating the banned fruit, but not to Eve. Apparently Adam must have told Eve about the ban, but again, without the knowledge of good and bad, how could Eve tell Adam was telling her the truth or not.

Another flaw in the whole Eden story is, if the tree of knowledge of good and bad was prohibited, then why did God planted that bl@#dy tree in the Garden in the 1st place? If he (god) didn't want them to eat the fruit from that tree, then why leave the temptation there?

The way I see it, this god actually wanted to test them. And since this god is supposedly omniscient (all-knowing), he gave them the test that he knew they would fail.

If you recall, in Genesis 1, when God's first commandment to the first man and woman was to be fruitful and multiply, and populate the world.

In the Garden of Eden, however, they did not have to work for their food, because the garden provide them an abundant of food. However, if they continued to live in Eden, and populate Eden, eventually the Garden Paradise would run out of food and they would starve to death...unless of course, they eat from the Tree of Life, but this won't stop the starvation. The point is the Garden would only have a limited amount of food, for large population, but you can't populate the world, if you stay in the Garden.

So perhaps God wanted them to fail (speculation).

If they were to populate and live in the real world, then people must learn to find and grow their own food. So perhaps, the talking serpent was deliberately planted in the garden, to tempt them to eat the fruit, and God can in good conscious remove them from the garden, because of the flimsy excuse they have disobey him.

So why make life easy for humans, when you (god) can watch them endlessly toil and suffer on earth.

 

[Humanistheart]

The same sort of questions I have asked in the past topics.

One of the answers you will get, is free-will. And another is they were being punished for the actual eating of the forbidden fruit; their punishments were for disobeying god's commandment.

I agree. And yes, I've gotten the whole 'free will' argument in similar threads on other sites. It's unbelievably ignorant and annoying isn't it? And the punishment model just furthers the point that god's a sadist. Discipline corrects a bad action, punishment is purely that, punitive, and serves no enlightening purpose.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree. And yes, I've gotten the whole 'free will' argument in similar threads on other sites. It's unbelievably ignorant and annoying isn't it? And the punishment model just furthers the point that god's a sadist. Discipline corrects a bad action, punishment is purely that, punitive, and serves no enlightening purpose.

Interesting take on punishment vs discipline. I'd like to know more about your views on crime and justice.

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree. And yes, I've gotten the whole 'free will' argument in similar threads on other sites. It's unbelievably ignorant and annoying isn't it?

Then I give you another argument: they weren't disciplined for eating the fruit at all. They were disciplined for not taking responsibility for their actions. I propose that if all three had admitted to their mistake and taken responsibility, then YHWH would have forgiven them and they would have not only been allowed to stay in the garden, but be allowed to eat as they wished from both Trees instead of just the Tree of Life.

 

[Humanistheart]

Then I give you another argument: they weren't disciplined for eating the fruit at all. They were disciplined for not taking responsibility for their actions. I propose that if all three had admitted to their mistake and taken responsibility, then YHWH would have forgiven them and they would have not only been allowed to stay in the garden, but be allowed to eat as they wished from both Trees instead of just the Tree of Life.

Again, what happened to them was not discipline, it was punishment. You have to understand the difference for the severity of this to make sence.

 

[gnostic]

Then I give you another argument: they weren't disciplined for eating the fruit at all. They were disciplined for not taking responsibility for their actions. I propose that if all three had admitted to their mistake and taken responsibility, then YHWH would have forgiven them and they would have not only been allowed to stay in the garden, but be allowed to eat as they wished from both Trees instead of just the Tree of Life.

:yes: I've heard of this interesting perspective...I think from Lilithu, originally, or from another lady RF member, I can't remember for sure.

However, I don't think they were meant to stay in Eden, particularly, if they were "to populate the earth". And also -

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

...and then -

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

They can't dominate or rule other animals all over the earth, if they were to stay in one place - Eden - could they?

They have to leave the Garden, and learn to grow food, whether it be hunting, gathering (which they were already doing), farming or husbandry of domesticated livestock.

If you remember Adam's punishment before the expulsion that he would have to toil on earth, to find food.

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

I personally don't think that the serpent was Satan that deceived Eve. I think it was God who was in the guise of the serpent. As I said before, God wanted them to fail the test, so that they could live in the real world, not in Paradise. Otherwise, why plant the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden?

God could have easily remove the Tree from the garden, thereby removing the temptation, but he didn't. He wanted them to be tested...and he wanted them out of the Garden, one way or another.

 

[DadBurnett]

I personally don't think that the serpent was Satan that deceived Eve. I think it was God who was in the guise of the serpent. As I said before, God wanted them to fail the test, so that they could live in the real world, not in Paradise. Otherwise, why plant the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden?

God could have easily remove the Tree from the garden, thereby removing the temptation, but he didn't. He wanted them to be tested...and he wanted them out of the Garden, one way or another.

If I understand what you have said ... we were designed to fail, to fall ... how then can our fall bre considered a punishable sin if we were just doing what God intended us to do? Moreover, why then would we need to be saved from carrying out the initiatives God set out for us?

 

[gnostic]

If I understand what you have said ... we were designed to fail, to fall ...

Don't you think it is rather a coincidence that the forbidden tree happened to be planted in the garden and that a serpent just happened to be there to test or deceive Eve?

how then can our fall bre considered a punishable sin if we were just doing what God intended us to do?

That because you think of it is THE FALL.

There are many ways to look at what happened in Genesis 2 & 3 - not just through the usual Christian theology.

Do you seriously think they could have populate the entire world and have rule the animals of the earth, sky and sea (as commanded in Genesis 1:26 and 1:28) from the garden paradise?

Unless you think the Garden of Eden covered the entire earth, then this paradise have boundary as stated earlier on in Genesis 2 (with the 4 rivers, verses 4-14). And clearly the Paradise is not limitless (in space), because they were deported from Eden (Genesis 3:23-24).

As I have stated in my other replies, God told them to go out and multiply, and rule the earth. They certainly can't do so unless they know how to get food through hard work.

Of course, I could be wrong, and Genesis 2-3 with Adam and Eve story could be separate creation myth to the 7-day creation myth of Genesis 1. After all, in Genesis 1, there's no Garden of Eden or forbidden tree, no one by the name of Adam and Eve, and more importantly, there were no sins.

In Genesis 1:28, God said that the creation of humans was good, and command them to go out and multiply.

 

[Humanistheart]

In Genesis 1:28, God said that the creation of humans was good, and command them to go out and multiply.

Where in Gen 1:28 does god say that the creation of humans was good?

While this is an interesting discussion, I feel compelled to remind people that Genesis is what's called a midrash, it didn't actually happen.

 

[Arkholt]

Where in Gen 1:28 does god say that the creation of humans was good?

It doesn't, though you could count 1:31, when he looked at every thing and said it was very good. "Every thing" would count humans.

 

[gnostic]

Where in Gen 1:28 does god say that the creation of humans was good?

Sorry, the part where it say "good", is not in Genesis 1:28, but in Genesis 1:31, not just humans, but everything he did on the 6th day:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

[Riverwolf]

Again, what happened to them was not discipline, it was punishment. You have to understand the difference for the severity of this to make sence.

They were unable to take responsibility for what they did. In my eyes, that's a very severe personal sin, one of the worst you can do to yourself; it's a form of self-deception.

If you were God, what would you have done? Be as detailed as you possibly can be.

 

[Riverwolf]

I personally don't think that the serpent was Satan that deceived Eve. I think it was God who was in the guise of the serpent. As I said before, God wanted them to fail the test, so that they could live in the real world, not in Paradise. Otherwise, why plant the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden?

God could have easily remove the Tree from the garden, thereby removing the temptation, but he didn't. He wanted them to be tested...and he wanted them out of the Garden, one way or another.

Sort of like the parent who purposely mixes white clothes with red ones while doing his child's laundry so that the child would be more inclined to do it himself.

I somehow don't think Humanistheart is going to like the approach here, though.

 

[Riverwolf]

While this is an interesting discussion, I feel compelled to remind people that Genesis is what's called a midrash, it didn't actually happen.

"Midrash" - (pl. Midrashim); containing extra-legal material of anecdotal or allegorical nature, designed either to clarify historical material, or to teach a moral point.
-from Judaism 101 - A Glossary of Basic Jewish Terms and Concepts

Genesis doesn't fit this definition.

Besides, the story didn't happen literally. This is already established by scholars. But it may have happened figuratively.

 

[Humanistheart]

"Midrash"

Besides, the story didn't happen literally. This is already established by scholars. But it may have happened figuratively.

You just basically discribed a midrash, so... your agreeing with me?