Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But Paul's "humanity's wisdom" isn't quite the same concept of Wisdom that was present in the creation myth. I think it's a mistake to conflate the two.
I certainly don't like death, and in Genesis which is what we are discussing death is either a punishment or a negative result. The Adam and the Eve are supposed to eat from the tree of life forever, but instead they don't.Sojourner said:
The creation narratives mostly concern the creation of Earth and the earthly beings (human beings and animals), as opposed to heaven and heavenly beings (angels). There are non-canonical texts (Apocrypha) that describe the nature and specific roles and histories of angels in more detail. But heaven is not the focus of the creation narratives in the canonical texts. However, from the few places in scripture where heavenly beings are discussed, it's clear that the fall of the angels occurred before the fall of man. Most Christians believe that Satan was also Lucifer, The King of Tyre and the serpent in the Garden of Eden because the description of all of them in various texts is nearly identical.
Is that so?! Perhaps you'd be so kind as to produce the passage that says, "Death bad!" 'Cause I don't think it's in there. I think that's something that you've concluded based upon something other than Genesis.
Read it again! No, they're not supposed to eat of it.
God created us, and we have errors. And (unlike the bible) we're created in God's image.
who says the serpent is bad?
Genesis isn't logic, it's myth.
Well... you certainly haven't studied it perfectly...
Not according the Genesis authors.
This is all true. But it's all part of the bigger picture that you're missing. The fall of man (and angels for that matter) was the natural result of free will, and they were both necessary as a lesson for all humans and angels. Only a third of the angels fell, and those fallen will never be redeemed. All humans are fallen. However, unlike angels who chose to rebel, God chose to redeem all of humanity from that original sin, since we inherited it.
I think he is referring to the curse of the fall after man sinned.
That doesn't constitute condemnation.
He DOES appear in Genesis (as the serpent) as I just pointed out.
Of course it does! In fact it perfectly meets the dictionary definition of the word: "an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable"
Hi Sojourner you ask why I think Genesis puts death as a bad thing:
They were originally free to eat from all trees in the garden except for one (Gen 2:16-17) That one was called tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. It was one of two trees in the middle of the garden (Gen 2:9). So they are allowed and encouraged to eat from the tree of life but ordered not to eat from the tree of knowledge, contrary to what you say.
This is similar to what I just posted before. Are you sure you don't have me confused with some other poster?
?? Therefore my argument stands.
Naturally I don't know what I'm talking about. That's why I'm discussing this in a public free forum instead of a religious journal. What's your excuse?
No.
yes, but that's not what we mean by the use of the word "condemnation," is it! By using "condemnation," we mean that God acts to punish us in some way. But that's not what happens here. This is simply the consequence of our actions.Of course it does! In fact it perfectly meets the dictionary definition of the word: "an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable"
'K... Where's the part that says "Death bad?"
Notice that those are the only two trees that are named. They are theologically tied together. The serpent says that eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil will make the man "like God." Herein is a prohibition by God -- setting a boundary that humanity may not cross. Humanity may not blur the line between humanity and divinity. They tried to cross that line. The trees are linked. The text implies that they weren't to eat of the tree of life either, since God says in chap. 3, "and now he might reach out his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree of life also." As if Adam hadn't done that before.
You're setting up a false argument. You asked:
My answer: We were divinely inspired and we have errors. In other words, it is possible for something divinely-inspired to contain errors.
Your argument doesn't stand. It's a straw man. You want the creation myth to read and follow like a science text or a mathematical equation.i won't do that, because it's myth. you have to read it and study it from that standpoint. you don't get to make it into something it isn't, and then study it that way and conclude "it doesn't make any sense."
Even in a public forum, your argument should still make sense. Even in a public forum, you should have some idea of what you're talking about before you purport to critique something.