Friday, 22 June 2012

Why God's First Words to Adam Were Lies

Now here's a funny thing.

Browsing my King James Bible, I came across this curious tale. Maybe you've heard of it. It's the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It makes you wonder just what sort of god the author was writing about. It soon becomes all too obvious why he was writing it in the first place though - and I do mean he.

Firstly, this god is supposed to have created the Garden of Eden, complete with fruit trees for food, and put Adam into it.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:8-9

He then tells Adam that he can eat the fruit on all the trees except for the [fruit of the] tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' otherwise he will surely die.


And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 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.

Genesis 2:15-17

So this god has put temptation in the Garden of Eden yet poor Adam does not yet have knowledge of good and evil so he doesn't yet know it's wrong to disobey this god. The words 'set up to fail' spring to mind.

But maybe that threat that Adam would die would do the trick, though we aren't told if this god has actually told Adam about death yet, and he can't have heard about it from anyone else. We can be sure though that Adam couldn't possibly have had any experience of this 'death' thing because, according to this version, there was nothing to die yet.

God then makes all the animals and birds, etc, out of the ground, apparently hoping that Adam could use one of them as a 'help meet'.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:18-20

Okay. So, this god decides to make Adam 'an help meet' and creates a whole lot of birds and animals to see if any of those would do, but fails to make a suitable one - which is strange really, what with being omniscient and having created Adam in the first place.

So, he has another go and creates a woman for him. For some reason, although he could create a man from dust and all the animals and birds 'out of the ground', he needs a piece of man from which to make a woman, but that's by the by. Maybe he was losing his touch or the magic was running out along with his omniscience.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 2:25

Well, obviously! With no knowledge of right and wrong, why would they feel shame?

And now the tale starts to get really bizarre, as though it weren't bizarre enough already.

Apparently, this god had included a talking, reasoning and cunning snake when he created all the animals and birds 'out of the ground'. It turns out too that this snake knew that the god had lied to Adam before it was even created, but we aren't told how it got this knowledge. Obviously someone must have told it because it wasn't there when the god told Adam the lie.

The lie was of course about dying if they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or even touched it (though the god apparently forgot to mention the touching part).

So, here we have an incompetent god who tells lies, and a clever serpent who tells Eve the truth. And Adam, who was told personally by this god that he would surely die, decides to take his chances with Eve and the serpent instead.

Perhaps he wasn't too impressed by this god either, having seen his bungling over the 'help meet' fiasco. But of course, Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, so they can't be held responsible for doing a 'wrong' thing, can they?

Anyway, they then eat the forbidden fruit, gain the knowledge of right and wrong through some mysterious process, and don't die that same day after all, just like the serpent says, and contrary to what the god had said.

God had lied to them.

So, was this knowledge of right and wrong the knowledge that this god is a liar and did Adam and Eve get their morals from a talking snake?

But it doesn't stop there.

A bit later on, Adam and Eve, who had mysteriously found a needle and thread and made some simple clothes to cover their newly-discovered naughty parts, heard this god walking about in the Garden of Eden so they hid from it.

And the god couldn't find them so he had to call out to Adam and ask him where he was.

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Genesis 3:8-9

They hid from an omniscient, omni-present god!

Moving on...

And it's only then that this 'omniscient' god discovers that they have eaten the forbidden fruit and now know right from wrong!

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Genesis 3:10-13

So, this 'omniscient' god now needs to be told what happened and falls for Eve's lie. The serpent hadn't deceived her at all. The serpent was the one who told them the truth and the only person who could have told the serpent the truth in the first place was the god. They touched and ate the fruit and didn't die like this god had told them they would; instead they lived, like the serpent had said they would.

It was Adam who had been deceived by the god.

It all smacks of a set-up to me.

But it maybe all becomes clear in the final few of verses of the tale:

And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life
Genesis 3:14

So the poor serpent gets punished for doing what he was made to do and for telling the truth which it can only have been fed by the god. And of course, as we all know, snakes eat nothing but dust to this day!

Then the sucker punches, and the reason the entire tale was made up in the first place, even at the expense of making the god sound like an incompetent fool and a liar. According to the author, the god who rigged the whole thing in the first place decides to punish Adam and Eve even though they didn't know right from wrong until after they had done the naughty thing. Not only that, but it deems this the worst crime imaginable and one for which all Adam and Eve's descendant were to be punished too.

And this is supposed to be an omni-benevolent god!

Unto the woman he said, 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.
Genesis 3:16

Yep! Women are to be the chattels of men! How convenient!

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 3:17-19

And the best a man can hope for is a life of toil and drudgery and labouring in the fields.

Except of course for the priests and the ruling classes, who just happen to own the fields and need a compliant labour-force who know their place and believe they deserve nothing better from life. What a very handy outcome for them, eh?

And that's the women put in their place too! Sod all that seduction and foreplay stuff and wanting a say in everything! A man should be master in his own house!

This is how you can tell that the Bible was written by men for the masters they served and how the god in it is a utility god who is made to be whatever suits the rulers at the time. Later on it will be a brutal, genocidal god, or a capricious, threatening one, or even one who sides with the underdogs - up to a point of course.





submit to reddit




Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.


116 comments :

  1. I couldn't possibly say "thank you" enough for posting this. I only wish that others could learn see it this way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also if he did not want them to eat from the tree why the FUCK DID HE PUT IT THERE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. perhaps it was one of his infamous "tests"

      Delete
    2. No point it running test if you already know the outcome.

      Delete
    3. Personally, I like Carl Sagans take on the garden of Eden story. He wrote in "Dragons of Eden" that none of the Eden story was meant be taken literally. It is merely metaphor for our species sentient awakening. It makes sense, right down to the serpent, primates have a natural inborn fear of snakes. Problem is, too many people are downright squishy potatoes and cant figure out that much of the bible is/was metaphor for events in the time the texts were written, they wont hear you when you try to explain to them that that the bible wasnt found in its current form bound together in a cave somewhere. Its texts were gathered together, picked and chosen from, and then re-written several times to suit the needs of the current authority. Its kind of sad really.

      Delete
  3. I am not a believer at all, but the 'death' that Adam got for eating from the tree was the knowledge of death, before that he was immortal. The dickish part was the creator dammed all animals for Adams sin...e

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what I remember from my days of Bible study. Adam and Eve were to be immortal until they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. At that point they were doomed to die...eventually.

      Delete
    2. Rather annoyingly though, it doesn't say that anywhere. The people who taught you that and their predecessors have had literally thousands of years to come up with an excuse for what it actually says. I am only thankful for the historical reverence for the book that has prevented them from changing the text to what they think it ought to say.

      Delete
  4. I pray for you, lost soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please, grace the lost souls with your magical thinking powers!!

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your smugly bigoted condescension. I hope it helped you feel better bout yourself.

      The motive for non-consensual prayer is of course the same as that for rape - power and self-gratification without responsibility. So, it's easy to see what you are using religion as an excuse for. You might enjoy reading Hiding Behind Piety.

      Delete
    3. Really? Someone who doesn't pray is motivated by the same thoughts as a rapist? Huh. Next time I don't go to church I guess I'll stop by a back alley for some "switch blade to neck" romance.

      Delete
    4. um, that's not what was meant by 'non-consensual prayer'

      Delete
  5. Keep praying, it really accomplishes a lot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep praying, it really doesn't do anything

      Fixed that for you.

      Delete
  6. God hadn't lied to Adam and Eve. Because they ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve sinned against God. Sin is what kills them. The outcome of sin is death, both literally and spiritually. Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God that would have lasted forever had they not gone against his command. If you read on, you will see that Adam and Eve do in fact die just as God said. God didn't say it would be an instant death and it wasn't. Also, He was not tempting them with the tree, Satan (whom was in the form of the serpent) was. God put the tree in the garden to allow us to make a choice, follow Him or go against Him. With this he gave us free will. He could have created the garden without any choice (the tree) but then Adam and Eve would not truly be following Him, they would just be robots who don;t know any different. As for "hiding from God", God knew exactly where they were. He called out to them like a father calls out to his children after they have done something wrong. When a child breaks a rule their first instinct is to run and hide. That is what Adam and Eve did. The child then hides in lets say the bathroom, the Parent knows exactly where the child is yet they will still call to them telling them to come to them. This is why God calls to Adam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why was the tree even there?

      Delete
    2. Actually, could you point out *exactly* in Genesis where it says that the serpent was Satan?

      Delete
    3. To allow us to choose to follow God or not follow Him. it was to show us we had a choice in the matter. God wanted true and loving relationships with His people. in order to accomplish this there had to be the option to not follow him or live him. that was why the tree was put there. God never forced any of his people to have a relationship with him. it was always the persons choice

      Delete
    4. So your interpretation is that Satan had to tell Eve the truth because God had lied to Adam.

      Interesting point.

      God the great deceiver and Satan the source of truth, eh? Hmmm... Maybe the Cathars were right after all and the material world was a satanic creation.

      Delete
    5. Genesis does not directly reference the serpent to being Satan. but through further study of the bible we see exactly the same traits and characteristics, and in Revelation, Satan is called a serpent 3 times. Revelation 12:9 refrences Satan being the serpent in the Garden pretty clearly calling Satan "that ancient serpent called the Devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray." (NIV translation)

      Delete
    6. Except, Anonymous, in the Old Testament and the time of Judaism prior to the Babylonian exile, there was no concept of heaven or hell nor of Satan (even angels). It wasn't until after that exile that the idea of Satan arose. We don't see Satan until 1 Chronicles 21 which is in the time of David.

      Delete
    7. Ezekial 28:12 talks about the cherub (above an angel) who was in Eden before man was there. This cherub was vain and rebelled against God. He was already there when God created the garden for Adam to rule over.

      Delete
    8. Um, Unknown, this is Ezekial 28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Perhaps you meant another passage?

      Delete
    9. Unknown, perhaps you meant Ezekial 28:14?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous, please read the entire article again. And then re-read your counter argument. See how many hoops you have to jump through to explain what you think is really going on? How un-common sense-like your reasoning is in comparison? I know how hard it is to look skeptically at what you truly believe to be true, but can tell you first-hand that it really is 'easy if you try' (to quote John Lennon). And you know what? It's better over here. We're still capable of the same level of 'good' that you hold dear. We still can help people less fortunate than ourselves. We can still give to people in need. It's just that we are doing those things for different reasons. This is a really fair and beautiful article that every person should read and ponder.

      Delete
    11. @RosaRubicondior- Please explain your comment further :) i don't quite understand how you interpreted my comment above in such a way. It appears that you manipulate my comment and add in your same opinion you had in your article, which i commented on in an attempt to shed new light on some of your points. I don't believe i even mentioned Satan talking to Eve, i merely stated that he was the tempter and not God. I also stated that God had not lied to Satan yet you insist somehow in my comment i did, please explain further so i can fully understand your point :)

      Delete
    12. To the first anonymous post. Shouldn't free will and the right to choose come without consequence. To say to Adam, either follow me blindly or die, doesn't seem like a real choice at all.

      Delete
    13. to the above anonymous post, don't all choices come with a consequence? wether god or bad?

      Delete
    14. "shouldn't the right to choose come without consequence?" what world do you live in?

      Delete
    15. Not much of a choice really. God is really saying live in ignorance ... and who can be truly free if they are ignorant - unsurprisingly slave owners harshly punished those slaves that showed signs of intelligence, and the European elites tried their very best to keep education away from the poor.

      Delete
  7. I comment similarly on this subject in my blog, also since the only notable thing god did was lie to Adam and kick him out I have no idea why Adam's children see god a worthy recipient of their praise, obedience or offerings.

    thebibleannotated.blogspot.com if you fancy a read.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very bored college student here (came across this blog post from Reddit) to offer some perspective/clarity on things:

    You interpret "death" as being a physical one, when the one presented here is a metaphorical one as the poster above stated. Both the apple and the snake (the snake being the physical embodiment of the Devil) fit in to the role of the temptation and the tempter (the apple being the object of temptation, the devil being the tempter). This is done for the simple concept of free-will. If there was no source of temptation or tempter, then Adam/Eve would've been "good" the entire time (i.e. without the ability to mis-behave, they never would have). To better understand the role of the Devil, reference the book of Job (it clarifies that the Devil operates in boundaries established by God). So no, it was not "rigged".

    God asks them where they are not because he did not know, but because he was giving them a chance to own up to what they did. The samething applies to asking them what they did wrong.
    Their punishment is as severe as it is because rather than owning up to their error and admitting they had something they were not supposed to, they hide (God knowing full well where they are) and play the "blame game." If take a look at the text neither Adam nor Eve admit to having done something they weren't supposed to. Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent.
    I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, my punishment was much more severe if I blamed my siblings rather than just admitting I'd been the perpetrator of the crime. It's insulting to the parent to know someone did something wrong and have them lie to your face thinking they can fool you (and as a by-product, insulting you by thinking you'd be gullible enough to buy into the lie).

    Though God in the Bible is stated as being Omni-potent, present (so on and so forth) and all-loving, a commonly over-looked factor in today's society is that God is also wrathful. As the analogy (also a verse if memory serves correctly) is so frequently made in the Bible, God plays the role of the Father with humans being his Kids because though he loves them, he also must punish them for mis-behaving. Kind of like how if you do something stupid at home, you'd get a time-out or something.

    Many perceive "anger" as being "bad" as described by the scripture, this is an inaccurate notion. There is something described as "Righteous Anger" (reference story to Jesus getting angry in the temple and breaking things). Anger can be "just" so long as it is for a loving cause. Another family analogy: when I was a kid I used to play hockey pretty recklessly, my Dad got angry at me because he was worried I would hurt myself and out of his love for me. He didn't take his anger out blindly, rather he gave me stern lecture and made me play safer.

    If you look at the Old Testament (the Jewish Torah) God does have quite a lot of people killed for being sinners (sinners being people who commit wrong doings. The concept of "sin" as being defined by the scripture). These people were given the opportunity to "behave" chose not to, and as such, were "punished".

    (Next post)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do love the way believers need to learn all those ways to argue that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

      And is was authored by a perfect communicator too...

      Delete
    2. We don't argue so much as point out flaws in your logic, its like interpreting any other book, you can't just take it for face value and it helps to actually read and understand the whole book before examining it :)

      Delete
    3. I geddit! The 'flaw in the logic' is thinking the Bible means what it says, and maybe not what you would like it to say.

      Delete
    4. Rubbish. Archaic logic. So many stories in the Bible of God commiting atrocities, sparing no one. Your points are standard evangelical apologetics that simply will not continue to hold up in this debate. Science and reason, which have contributed un-measurable benefits to our society and understanding of the world as it truly is, does not rest on its laurels. Both always strive to improve. Your above statement represents the very best in apologetic argument and can't compete.

      Delete
    5. Why should we "interpret" the bible anymore than we should interpret any other book? Its a book fill with angels, demons, fire, asteroids, and other fantastical things. I don't know about your library, but in mine books like that are usually housed in the fiction section. I cannot understand why when someone puts the word "God" in the book, it all of a sudden becomes this amazing tome of knowledge that we should base our entire lives on.

      Seems kinda stupid to me.

      "I read Harry Potter, and now I am going to live like him"

      Delete
    6. The question I would pose is why we should not "interpret" the Bible in the same way as we do other books. Homer's Iliad? "A Short History of WWII"? There are numerous books it is perfectly normal to "interpret," considering such things as the context of the author, the possible motives for writing and issues of translation from an older language.

      To approach any of the 66 individual books which make up the Bible in the same way is to follow standard practise, and has nothing to do with making exceptions or excuses.

      Of course, in some cases we bother less with such things; unless you are an English literature bod you might not care too much about the background to a novel or the deeper themes expressed therein. But the Bible was never written as a novel in the same way that Harry Potter was written by JK Rowling and to dismiss it on that basis shows a level of ignorance and a real lack of willingness to engage rationally with it.

      Also, picking up on the apparent revalation that in this thread that the Bible was not directly written by God himself. Does anyone seriously think that's what Christians believe?

      Delete
    7. Who exactly is stopping you ignoring what the Bible says, and making something else up instead as an excuse? That's what most Christians seem to day anyway.

      Delete
    8. Kind of makes me wonder about the quality of your college education...

      Delete
    9. The problem with anonymous comments is that it's difficult to know whether it is the same person or a different one. Please forgive the fact that I am resurrecting an old thread - I've been on holiday - but I am intrigued. Whose college education are you questioning? OK, so I failed to spell "revelation" properly, but if you are having a dig at me I hope you have better reasoning than that...

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The female is described as being "ruled by her husband" in terms of family house-hold concepts. This does not imply blind obedience, rather this is because Eve did not use logic (or lacked it) to point out the fallacy of the Snake (Devil's) challenge. The Devil manipulates her on an emotional level. This establishes that women are more emotional than men (as science as established in today's time) and while this can be good or bad, in this case it is argued that her emotion inhibited her from taking a logical approach. As Adam is not as dictated by his emotions as Eve is, and can take that logical approach, man is established as head of the house-hold. However understand that does not mean woman is a subservant role, that she is "lower on the totem pole of than man;" rather the concept of the family is very much one as you see today, a concept of "yin and yang." Because man is more logical he forgets to be emotional, and vice-versa, so the notion is they carry each other by supporting their weaknesses. (Of course there are women who are more logical than men, and men who are more emotional than women, let this not be forgotten).

    You talk about how this is now provides a labor force for the church and aristocracy. If you take a brief look at history it is seen that the Christian Church (or any religious faction from Shintoism to Buddhism to the Judaic religions) promoted learning (though you may consider this hypocrisy because in some people's view-point, the scripture is designed to teach "blind-obedience" an inaccurate perception). So it is understandable that in a time in which scarcely few people had education, those that did would be on the top.

    Hope this adds a bit of clarity/new perspective on things.
    Signed,
    A very bored college student

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet Genesis 3:16 looks just like God is telling Eve that women are to be brood mares and their husband's possession from now on with:

      Unto the woman he said, 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.

      Delete
    2. The college student is correct in his points. looks can be deceiving, you can't just take a verse without the proper context, its like finding part of the bible that said "and God hated them" and applying it to us saying how God hates us when infact the very next verse or previous verse shows the them was refering to something completely different

      Delete
    3. LOL! Genesis 2 & 3 are 'out of context'! Love it!

      Is any of the Bible in context?

      Delete
    4. its not that Genesis 2 and 3 are out of context, its the way it's presented and the way different verses from each are used. using one or two verses and then skipping a few (sometimes not everytime) then making a point about it gives a misconception about what is happening during Chapters 2-3, it gives the basics of what happens with some sarcastic inaccurate points put in to twist the story even further, like you have done with manny of the comments.

      Delete
    5. So how exactly do the few verses I left out change the context of Genesis 3:16 please?

      Delete
    6. its not that they change the context of 3:16 but that overall you laid out a manipulated misconceived version of the Genesis story.

      Delete
    7. 1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

      Don't forget that little gem. Look, this whole debate is silly. Either the bible is the word of good or it isn't. You can't reinterpret the bible, then say this is the word of God. It's either God's word, literally, or it's man's word. It can't be "open to interpretation". So if you want to believe in a talking snake and that women are the property of man, then I can respect that, or you have to believe (as I do) that this is total bullshit.

      Delete
    8. So Genesis 3:16 wasn't 'out of context' then.

      Funny how that changed to something else when you were challenged to substantiate your assertion.

      Delete
    9. Don't forget the time period and Geographic area that the Bible was written. it includes certain things like don't eat certain meats and things because that was relevant back then. not so much now because we can actually prepare it correctly, anyway the culture back then (especially in the middle east) was very pro-man. that was written during that time and thus was a very acceptable thing to mention. Women were considered the property of men. this book is thousands of years old yet we seem to forget that so we take verses like Genesis 3:16 and 1 cor 14:33-35, 37 and show how "bad" the bible is and how "degrading it is to women" when infact it was actually the culture of where it was written by its 40 DIFFERENT AUTHORS whom somehow managed to collaborate together even though they were THOUSANDS of years appart and at times HUNDREDS of MILES from one another some of whome probably NEVER fully read the Torah, yet were able to reference one another almost to a t and included many same themes and details and were able to make it flow from one another almost seamlessly as though there was one author... now please tell me how that is a work of man and not a work of GOD

      Delete
    10. Perhaps a hermenuetics 101 class would be beneficial.

      Delete
    11. @Anonymous 22 June 2012 21:19
      For exactly the same reason that Jesus' own background matches up quite nicely with other deities before Jesus. Born of a virgin? Done that before. Star in the east? Yep. In a manger? Yep. Died, then resurrected 3 days later? Uh huh.

      These are all mashups of previous deity stories handed down from generation to generation. These stories spanned the thousands of miles and thousands of years that you are speaking of, and finally became the story of Jesus.

      Here's an example: Santa Claus. His myths are world-wide and have lasted generations! That means he must still deliver presents to children every Christmas!

      And as far as the books of the bible being "seamless"... try again. There are many contradictions throughout the books of the bible. What really happened to Judas? The bible has at least two different accounts.

      Delete
    12. The only real problem with the 'wrathfully righteous' explanation (well, aside from the fact that god is made-up at least) is that any creature of a level of intellect of the caliper necessary to create 'the universe' would need to understand laws of proportionality. Or, in layman terms 'punishment should fit the crime'. If your child steals a cookie from the jar, (being a cookie jar surrounded by a room of cookie jars your child was told to enjoy, but not THIS specific cookie jar, because then they would surely die, although having never experienced death through loved ones, or at all, this wouldn't be much of a detriment) do you take your child and dump them in the wilderness?

      Something smells fishy in this story.

      Delete
    13. bored college grad23 June 2012 at 04:48

      "because that was relevant back then"
      which means now it's not relevant. that's some guide for living written by an all-knowing, all-loving god you've got there...

      Delete
  11. As I understand it, it was not the action of eating the fruit that God was sadden by, but that Adam, who was a perfect human, thought he could become like God by it. The tree of knowledge was about everything there is in universe; it was total, and complete. Why did God deny Adam total knowledge of the universe? Because Adam was not God, but God's creation.




    tl;dr Adam wanted to be like God, God was like, "No."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you point out where in Genesis it says Adam's goal in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was to become godlike?

      Delete
    2. Hmmm, so Adam was a "perfect human" before eating from the tree of knowledge? Blissfully ignorant is what your god intended? Speaking of which, if he'd planned on there only being one man and eventually one woman, why make the whole planet and the moon and the sun and the animals and the stars and the... nevermind.

      They say the book is god's word and yet when it doesn't make any sense suddenly it's all metaphors. You'd think the author would have been more specific about the most important questions.

      Delete
    3. Isn't that what it meant? A Tree of Knowledge? Knowledge of everything good, everything bad, and everything in between? Adam was perfect, and he was intelligent, but not in a omnipotent way. (Knowledge being power in this instance.)


      But why, oh why would God create animals, planets or suns and stars? Something to eat, something to keep you warm and light your path literally, and stars(systems) to one day explore.

      Delete
    4. bored college grad23 June 2012 at 04:56

      "and stars(systems) to one day explore"
      would seem to imply foreknowledge of original sin. how would we one day be capable of star exploration WITHOUT eating from the tree of knowledge?
      the author's term "set up to fail" seems apt, then.

      Delete
    5. Why wouldn't God and Adam explore the universe whenever they want?

      Delete
  12. i feel as though alot of the Bible in this Post has been lost in mistranslation. The old English in the King James version is often very hard to study and understand. for example when the OP comments on Gods questions and lack of knowledge that was not accurate. without taking account to the type of English used it may have been but when one really looks at old English, we see many "questions" are really statements or in a way rhetorical questions. i really wished the OP took that into account before writing the article, it is an interesting take on Genesis but with few valid statements due to the misunderstanding and interpretation, like another Anonymous commented above, the NIV (new international version) is much more suitable for understanding and, if one must, arguing wether for or against the bible due to the more modern English and more accurate translating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Old English, 400AD to 1100AD (very roughly) You really wouldn't recognise it.
      Middle English, 1100AD to 1500AD (very roughly) You might recognise it but probably only understand every third word.

      Shakespeare began writing in the 1580s and is well understood by most with a passing grade at GCSE Level (Highschool) English

      KJV completed 1611

      The KJV is not written in 'Old English', in fact it is relatively modern English. Don't suppose that the OP can't read it.

      Delete
    2. What sayest thou? That I knowest not the English mine forefathers spake unto me even as a babe? Verily I say this unto you. Many an aged man and an aged woman spake of thee, thou and thine in the youth of my days in the land of Oxenford which lieth close unto Gloucester in the West and close under the Wolds of Cottes and the Forest of Wyche. Lo! Even saying 'bisn't' and 'that it be' and like utterances of an earlier age. I was not for ever as ye seest me, a person of learning, wise in the ways of discourse.

      Delete
    3. Ok, RR - that was awesome :D

      Delete
    4. I had to read a section of the King James Bible for history 130, and what you wrote was nothing like it. Why? Your comment was straight forward, and elementary. The KJV in its original format and archaic language is difficult and not very fun.

      Delete
    5. The Difficulty you've experienced in reading the KJV comes not from the kind of English it was translated into but because the source material is very badly written.

      Which section did you have to read?

      Delete
    6. No idea what you're talking about Anonymous 23 June ... you can read the KJV online I wa expecting something else but as it happens its the Bible that my religion made me read as a child. Perfectly understandable if you are moderately educated.

      Delete
  13. For the guys who want to say that god put a forbidden tree in the garden so that they could choose between being with god or not being with god. This isn't a choice. A choice would be having a relationship with god with certain benefits or not having a relationship with god with certain benefits. But to love or to burn? That's not choosing anything, that's coercion. There was no choice here to be made.

    It's the same thing as a person robbing you of your wallet at gun point. You can give your wallet to them and not get killed or refuse to give your wallet and get killed. Someone explain how that's actually a choice beyond semantics. Anyone else would see this situation as manipulation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. you will die = you will become mortal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder how God ever managed without someone to work out what on earth he meant with those perfectly straightforward word.

      Delete
    2. Remember that God has infinite wisdom, so his even most straightforward words must sound to human just like Einstein "explaining in simple words" to a 5-year old :)

      Delete
    3. are they perfectly straight forward though? what makes them so straight forward? and isn't death part of being mortal? doesn't being mortal mean we will die? therefore saying you will die is basicaly a substitute for saying you will become mortal,

      Delete
    4. Isaiah 55:8 " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord"

      Delete
    5. bored college grad23 June 2012 at 05:04

      "Isaiah 55:8 " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord""
      ah, makes perfect sense then that we're asked to love god, the Incomprehensible!

      Delete
    6. Isn't it amazing that when we prove them wrong with their own bible, suddenly the text should not be taken literally. Yet when the fundie's use their text to prove their point (or lack of one) it suddenly should be taken 100% literal......

      Delete
  15. @Anonymous: "It's the same thing as a person robbing you of your wallet at gun point. You can give your wallet to them and not get killed or refuse to give your wallet and get killed."

    But that IS a choice. Not a tough one, but still a choice. If you claim otherwise, analyze the same situation, but this time the villain demands that you kill someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pretty simple....if god existed why would he go to all of this trouble? Why does he seem so flawed and plagued by human emotion if he is omnipotent? How can Adam and Eve be held accountable for an action that was wrong if they were not given knowledge of what right and wrong to begin with? Set up to fail damn straight! This story is no different than all of the other stories and fables in the bible's. The contradictions and what I would consider to be very flawed and poor writing at best; are clear to any logical mind. The theist will always find a way to twist the words or meaning to fit their needs. "Oh you can't take this passage literally but this one you should". "If you find that god conveniently has all the same views as yourself; this is when you know god was created in your image and not the other way around" (Can't remember who the quote was from) Apparently god gave up on having man work in the fields forever (hence my comfy office chair where I sit and type right now), snakes are now allowed to eat rodents (I am sure they feel blessed for that concession). He quit talking to us...bummer cause just a few sentences for everyone to hear would really clear this whole mess up. I get that it makes you feel safe and cozy thinking there is some grander purpose for you in life and there is a loving father figure with all your loved ones waiting on the other side when you die. A few millennia ago with what our ancestors knew it made sense to think that but to defend it now is asinine and irresponsible. The lack of a god should make you cherish this life and your fellow man and woman even more. It should give greater meaning to your life not less. No one can say with any certainty what happens when you die but I can assure you it will not be this god meeting you behind a pearly gate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To those who say Rosa is quoting 'out of context', I submit that the Bible IS a 'con' text, as it has been conning people for millennia. The late, great Douglas Adams brilliantly summed up the warped theology of the Garden of Eden story in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
    'Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting "Gotcha". It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.'
    'Why not?'
    'Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.'

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

    hmmm. choose behind door a, but you don't know what is behind it.
    choose behind door b, but you don't know what is behind it.
    or perhaps you have an idea, but you're really choosing what you feel is most likely to happen, you'll die, or you won't. I wonder if Pascal could see this 50/50 gamble.
    any choice at this point is arbitrary and cannot be understood in terms of a choice. you can't make a right choice if you don't know what right is, and either one is equally viable.
    so you choose to eat. woohoo. you didn't die.
    it's here that apologists start to warp language. "he did die that day. that was a day to god." well, i don't think "god" is going to go talking to you in terms you cannot understand. it would use terms relative to your understanding...assuming it wanted you to understand. a day is one rotation of the earth, starting at point a and ending at point a. amazing a couple of them pass before the sun is even made.
    if you want a better version of mythology look to Homer, Ovid, or Virgil. If you want better metaphors, look to Shakespeare. If you want truth look to philosophy, and if you want facts look to science. but if you want to keep believing in an all-loving god that seeks to destroy everything, then resurrect people for the sole purpose of torturing them forever (he could just let them not exist anymore?) then that's your prerogative. you would expect at least a little practical information from the bible, but Matthew 6:24-31 and 19:21 ought to do the trick.
    btw, if you're using philosophy to prove faith, you're serving 2 masters. you cannot be a master of faith (taking things for granted, even if they aren't proved) and a master of asking questions that faith cannot answer. choose one and stay there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fantastic, well-written article! This was really fun to read.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Of course the damned Bible was written by men. It was a patriarchical counter to the matrilineal religions of the time with their sacred groves and nature-worship, and their relative gentleness. That's why Jezebel was murdered, etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  22. When they touched/ate the fruit, Adam and Eve's innocence died. Either that or my critical thinking just died.

    The Bible never portrays an omniscient God. The only time it says anything about God being all-knowing are a couple musings from members of the Yaweh fan club. God himself is usually shown with a weak knowledge of the present, much less the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it great the way you can ignore what the Bible actually says and just make something else up instead. I guess that's what comes of being the inerrant truth of a perfect communicator.

      Delete
    2. If I wrote a commentary to the Bible it would be titled "How Convenient."

      Delete
  23. Rosa, you are simply misinterpreting the text. You have to have a clear picture of all of scripture before you can make such specific arguments because you just aren't understanding what it says. There is a gap in communication. You are going into your reading with a closed mind, trying to find ways to prove it wrong, and any of us could distort any text to find falacies even if they don't exist. This is especially true with a document translated from Hebrew, since Hebrew is a simpler language than English and has many word pictures that don't come through the translation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er... I quoted the Bible verbatim.

      Did you not recognise it?

      Delete
    2. Misinterperetation Rosa... Why do you automatically assume you get the burden of proof? You can construe just about anything to be wrong if you read it that way. I don't see how your way of interpreting it is any more valid than a Bible-believers is.

      Delete
    3. Contrarian.

      I don't. I know those who make the positive claim, i.e. that there is a god, bear the burden of proof, though I can understand morally bankrupted cowards trying to divest themselves of that particular burden when they know they have none. It would expose the fraudulent nature of their claim. See 'Shifting The Burden'.

      Delete
    4. But if you don't believe Bible believers have the burden of proof, your interpretation has no more validity than theirs. I didn't claim to know your mind, it was based on observation. More "scientific" if you will than just taking someones word for it.

      Delete
    5. People who claim that the Bible is literal, or even allegorical, truth bear the burden of proving that claim.

      I hope that helps.

      Delete
    6. When reading anything, it is subject to interpretation. Each person's past experiences and biases will decide how he or she interprets the words. There isn't really a "burden of proof" in this situation. You can construe it to be false, I can construe it to be true, and no one can be "proven" right or wrong.

      Delete
    7. Contrarion.

      Do you seriously believe reality can change according to our belief in it? Can you suggest a plausible mechanism for this, please?

      By the way, we do have a tool for measuring what is true and what isn't. It's the thing that makes it possible for us to be having this conversation in this medium. It's called 'science'.

      Delete
    8. You are trying to bring science into this conversation? We are talking about textual analysis! It is subject to interpretation because the reality can't be proven with cold facts in this case. You are acting as if it can! Bashing God based on the Bible is silly and doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    9. I can fully understand your reluctance to use the only tool we have for measuring what is true and what isn't.

      As for 'textual analysis', I can see little value in a book which requires it's readers to ignore the words in it and make up some different ones instead. I imagine that is only useful for people who have no evidence for their claims, nor real excuses for their behaviour, attitudes and opinions, but want something 'authoritative' which can be made to say whatever they want it to say to blame them on.

      Delete
  24. Genesis 3:22-23 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

    For anyone who thinks Adam and Eve were created immortal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember, though, that they were created in God's image. That implies everlasting life. There is an abundance of other Scripture that says those who accept Christ as Lord, who have faith in God will be counted as righteous and will have everlasting life. The IDEA WAS for Adam and Eve (and all mankind) to live forever. Otherwise, WHY would God even bother warning them of death when death was already (supposedly) part of the plan?

      Rather, God's intention for guarding the Tree of Life was so that mankind could not attempt to claim everlasting life on their own merits and think they did not need God. God still requires mankind to be holy as He is holy - perfect. If mankind thought they could live forever by their own doing, then they would only perpetuate their evil ways indefinitely. God uses death as a tool to help people understand that sin CANNOT continue as if it's okay. If people didn't have to fear death, then they would certainly never turn back to God. If they never turned back to God, then death, pain, loneliness, fear, and more would continue to get worse and worse (the whole story of the Flood emphasizes such a point).

      Delete
    2. It is impossible to understand the Bible until you realize that different parts of it were written at totally different times by people *practicing totally different religions* with *totally different belief systems*. And the reinterpretations started *early*, well before the consolidation of the four major ur-texts which textual analysis says make up the Torah (P, J, E, D if I remember correctly).

      The belief system of J, one of the oldest, involves a God who is not omnipotent and not omniscient, but who is very much modeled on an angry and abusive male head-of-household. Pretty common for the period, if you look at Zeus.

      The belief systems of the 2nd century when Christianity was being codified bear very little resemblance. It is due to the injunction to copy the Torah accurately and treat it as holy, a meme which arrived sometime which is quite unclear (note that the Samaritan text is different but they have the same rule), that we have these artifacts of much earlier religions embedded in a much later religion.

      Delete
  25. 1. The author emphasizes God's taking of a masculine identity without understanding why. The emphasis, to my mind, seems particularly sexist for I presently cannot understand WHY ELSE she would emphasize the Biblical understanding of God in the masculine with such a critical tone.

    2. The author then incorrectly accuses God of tempting Adam (and Eve) by planting the forbidden Tree in the Garden of Eden. But that is an error in terms. God, indeed, did plant the Tree within their reach, but He also gave them full warning of the consequences if they did as He commanded them not to.
    It is like a mother ironing some clothes and warns her child to NOT touch the hot iron, because it'll hurt the child badly if he disobeys. If the child touches it anyway, then the child is at fault; not the mother. Temptation occurs when one gives into a personal inclination to rebel or follows the prompting of another to do something that is sensibly unwise to do.

    3. Temptation is precisely what Satan (the serpent) uses. He prompts them to focus on being gods, themselves, ignoring God's firm warning.

    4. The author's reference to Moses' wording in Genesis 2 fails to take into account the order of Creation and what the author was doing in the way the account was written. Moses was highlighting that God had already finished His earlier creative acts with the animals. Genesis 2 is a much more in-depth account of the 6th day, when God created the animals AND mankind. Moses is focusing heavily on the part of creation when God creatd Adam and Eve. By that point in time (Genesis 2:18-20), Eve had not YET been created, clearly, but Adam was already able to interact with the animals. God's creation of mankind was MUCH MORE involved, having formed them peresonally, whereas He merely spoke the rest of Creation into existance. Through the way Moses articulates the Creation events, God was in no way actually trying to find Adam a mate amongst the animals, but was rather emphasizing His particular purpose for making someone in His own image who would compliment Adam.

    (Continued...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >The author emphasizes God's taking of a masculine identity without understanding why. The emphasis, to my mind, seems particularly sexist for I presently cannot understand WHY ELSE she would emphasize the Biblical understanding of God in the masculine with such a critical tone.<

      This opening slur might have been more effective if you had managed to find some supporting text with which to support it. Let's hope it doesn't set the tone of the whole diatribe.

      >The author then incorrectly accuses God of tempting Adam (and Eve) by planting the forbidden Tree in the Garden of Eden.<

      And gives the biblical reference to justify doing so... Genesis 2:15-17

      >Temptation is precisely what Satan (the serpent) uses. <

      By telling them the truth. Who told the serpent what God had said to Adam BEFORE he created the other animals? The snakes and all its descendants are later punished for the crime of telling the truth which it can ONLY have got from God, so whoever wrote this stuff clearly never saw them as Satan, merely an intelligent taking snake.

      >The author's reference to Moses' wording in Genesis 2 fails to take into account the order of Creation and what the author was doing in the way the account was written.<

      So quoting the Bible give the wrong account, eh? I expect that's what happens when you rely on a book written by someone who clearly got the story muddled and wrote it differently each time they wrote it down.


      Delete
  26. 5. The author clearly does not understand the importance of Eve being made from Adam's own flesh. For though Eve, herself, came from Adam's body, Adam is still made from the dust, thus confirming that Eve, too, is made from the same dust. The author criticizes God's omniscience and power.

    6. In reference to Gensis 2:25, the author mistakenly points out that the reason Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness was due to having no knowledge of right or wrong. THAT is wrong, actually. They had no knowledge of good AND evil. The Biblical account states that God is good, and all that He created was good. And since Adam and Eve were created in God's image, they, too, were 100% good. They had no lacking of good (aka evil). They knew right from wrong for they understood that it was wrong to disobey God given God's instructions regarding the forbidden Tree.
    There was no need to feel ashamed of anything - particularly their own nakedness - for they had not (yet) sinned. They had not done anything that defiled their image as it reflected God's own likeness. Once sin entered the picture by their disobedience, they felt shame and tried to cover themselves up as if to hide their sin. (It should be a very curious thing why people even today try to "improve" their BODIES with clothes, make-up, muscles and all manner of other accessories. Doesn't seem all that different from what Adam and Eve did by sewing up fig leaves as "clothing".)

    7. The snake is a physical manefestation of Satan, aka Lucifer, the fallen angel. Satan had already tried to rebel against God shortly after his creation (which co-incides with all of Creation). It's certainly not readily explained why a talking snake didn't startle Adam and Eve, and while it seems to assault anyone's present sensibilities, it's is THEORHETICAL - however remote a posibility - that animals did talk. Or MAYBE it's that Adam and Eve were so well acquainted with the supernatural at that time they didn't think anything of a talking snake being so out of the norm. (I'm personally inclined to go with the latter thought.)

    8. I'm at a loss as to how the author of this blog assumes God was lying at all about anyone dying should they eat of the forbidden Tree. The author doesn't even give so much as a theory as to why, but just presumes it must be so. But this fails to take into the VERY obvious reality: people do die.

    (Continued...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >The author clearly does not understand the importance of Eve being made from Adam's own flesh. For though Eve, herself, came from Adam's body, Adam is still made from the dust, thus confirming that Eve, too, is made from the same dust. The author criticizes God's omniscience and power.<

      This might have carried more weight had you explained why an omnipotent god needed flesh to create a woman from, when it had created a man from dust and made all the animals out of 'the ground', apparently. For that matter, having created a universe out of nothing why did this god need anything out of which to make humans and other animals? Were it's creative powers diminishing?

      >In reference to Gensis 2:25, the author mistakenly points out that the reason Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness was due to having no knowledge of right or wrong. THAT is wrong, actually. They had no knowledge of good AND evil. <

      Nice use of semantics there. Were you unable to refute what I (and the Bible) said using logic and/or reason?

      >The snake is a physical manefestation of Satan, aka Lucifer, the fallen angel. <

      See above. For this to be true would mean that snakes are Satan and that God's punishment of Satan is to make him crawl on his belly and eat dust.

      The author of Genesis clearly didn't agree with you.

      > I'm at a loss as to how the author of this blog assumes God was lying at all about anyone dying should they eat of the forbidden Tree.<

      Because when they ate the fruit they didn't die as God had said they would.

      Definition of 'lying':
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      noun
      1. the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness: From boyhood, he has never been good at lying. Synonyms: falsehood, falsity, mendacity, prevarication. Antonyms: truth, veracity.

      adjective
      2. telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; deceitful; false: a lying report. Synonyms: deceptive, misleading, mendacious, fallacious; sham, counterfeit. Antonyms: true, candid, actual, correct, accurate, trustworthy.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      It's similar in many respects to your opening claim that I had emphasised the masculinity of the god of the Bible, in fact. Another way to express it, which you may have come across before, is 'bearing false witness'. (Exodus 20:16).

      I hope that helps.

      Delete
  27. 9. The author accuses God of lying about death for their disobedience but cannot even answer how the Serpent knew any better. Further, she accuses God of "forgetting to mention" that they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit, which was never part of the stipulations. The author conveniently fails to address the fact that it was Eve, herself, who added the "do not touch" article to God's instructions, and that was only AFTER Satan had begun to question Eve about God's commands in the first place, thus creating doubt in Eve's mind. (The author does accurately attribute Satan's cleverness to him, though.)

    10. The auther assumes that God's forwarned punishment of death would be instantaneous. Thus, when Adam and Eve are not depicted as dead moments later, she attempts to affirm her claims of God's untruthfulness. But God never said WHEN death would occur, just that it would. And, indeed, Scripture tells that Adam died some 900 years later. (Critics will decry how anyone could live so long, but that's not the point: Adam died just as God warned.)

    11. The author assumes God is not omnipresent nor omniscient because Adam and Eve attempted to hide from God and explained what had happened. But the author never stops to actually ask WHY God would ask such questions. Earlier, the Scriptures talk of how God would come to "walk" in the Garden with them. These suggests God enjoys personal interaction with His Creation. The author never considers that God was giving Adam and Eve the chance to step up and take responsibility for their actions. God was not asking because He was lacking, but was rather giving Adam and Eve the benefit of His omniscience. He knew exactly where they were - it was them who thought they could ever hide from God.

    12. The author also presumes the Serpent was a SNAKE, making God's punishment on him look silly. The presumption makes the author look more silly.

    (Continued...ALMOST DONE! LOL)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >The author accuses God of lying about death for their disobedience but cannot even answer how the Serpent knew any better. <

      Claiming to know my mind and abilities now? Exodus 20:16 again springs to mind.

      Can you explain who told the serpent what God had said to Adam BEFORE God had created the animals, please? How did the serpent know about the fruit tree and it (non)fatal powers, please? For that matter, who taught it to speak in a Bronze Age dialect of Hebrew then (allegedly) only understood by two humans and God?

      >The author conveniently fails to address the fact that it was Eve, herself, who added the "do not touch" article to God's instructions, <

      Apart from the serpent, obviously (Genesis 3:4.

      >The auther assumes that God's forwarned punishment of death would be instantaneous. Thus, when Adam and Eve are not depicted as dead moments later, she attempts to affirm her claims of God's untruthfulness.<

      Oh! They died later on eh? How convenient!

      Any thoughts on why they were equipped to eat, drink, breathe and excrete waste, to digest food and circulate blood with nutrients around their bodies if they were originally created immortal and incapable of death, and would thus not have needed the means for sustaining life?

      >The author assumes God is not omnipresent nor omniscient because Adam and Eve attempted to hide from God and explained what had happened.<

      That, and God having to ask them where they were (Genesis 3:9).

      >The author also presumes the Serpent was a SNAKE, making God's punishment on him look silly. The presumption makes the author look more silly.<

      And everyone else who has interpreted the Bible that way too, even God. Silly God, eh? (Genesis 3:14)


      Delete
    2. >The author also presumes the Serpent was a SNAKE, making God's punishment on him look silly. The presumption makes the author look more silly.<

      Wikipedia - Serpent (Bible)

      Oops! Guess you should have done a little more research before posting that ad hominem abuse. LOL!

      Delete
  28. 13. The author reaffirms her accusations of God being the liar and that Adam and Eve being ignorant of right and wrong in order to build her next case against God's punishments to Adam and Eve. But this will amount to further failure as she is already building on a false premise.

    14. The auther continues to misapply her interpretations by assuming God intended for women to be subservient slaves to men. Nothing of the sort was stated. Rather, God was explaining how their sin would result in such consequences. Remember, Eve was to be a help mate, equal to Adam in standing. But because she listened to Satan's tricks and disobeyed God, her inclinations will be toward her husband. The Hebrew for "desire" is described along the lines of a "strong craving or longing for". She will try to fight it and may try to rise above him, but her husband will now have authority over her. This does NOT mean to abuse her in anyway. For we see later on in Scripture that men are expected to treat women with kindness and respect JUST AS God treats His people with love and compassion. That women in Biblical times have been looked down upon as property or likewise is evidence of HUMAN failure, but was not part of God's plan even in punishment.

    15. God's punishment to Adam was that Adam's labor would be fruitless on his own. But throughout Scripture we see many people who thrive in their labors when they obey God out of respectful fear and and holy reverence. God promises to bring joy to people's lives who honor Him. God explains, Himself, that He wants nothing more than to continually bless His people, but He MUST punish evil for He does not want people's waywardness to destroy them. This is a constant theme throughout the Bible.

    16. All I can say about the priestly accusation is that the author has absolutely no understanding of God's design for the order He set up for the priests. They were to depend on God alone. That the priests would take advantage of their positions proved they were more inclined to selfishness and abuse of their power than they were about honoring God. The "nobility" of their position was more important to them than the honor bestowed upon them by God, Himself, to be His leaders to the people.

    17. The author DEFINITELY has not read Song Of Songs (aka Song of Solomon) if she thinks women are to put aside any and all seductiveness... God is ALL FOR women using their bodies to entice their husbands. And men are more than welcome to enjoy their wives. The reverse is also very true. Remember, God CREATED mankind NAKED. God is all for spouses enjoying each other mutually. That anything to the contrary is occuring is evidence of the fallen ways of mankind and how we have strayed from God's desire for us.

    18. Then the author again emphasizes her sexist ideas by stating that the Biblical texts were written by men. But if the men of the Bible days were truly sexist, then texts like Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5 and Proverbs 31 would not exist.

    (DONE!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >The author reaffirms her accusations of God being the liar and that Adam and Eve being ignorant of right and wrong in order to build her next case against God's punishments to Adam and Eve. But this will amount to further failure as she is already building on a false premise.<

      A 'false premise' fully supported by biblical references. How odd!

      >The auther continues to misapply her interpretations by assuming God intended for women to be subservient slaves to men. Nothing of the sort was stated.<

      Apart from "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16), obviously. Were you hoping your readers would be ignorant of the Bible or have you not read it either? You really should. It's hilarious.

      >but her husband will now have authority over her.<

      Oh! You have read it - which makes your above statement even more puzzling! Exodus 20:16 again?

      >God's punishment to Adam was that Adam's labor would be fruitless on his own.<

      Another claim not supported by the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19). Interesting that you now feel you have to fill in the pieces which God forgot to include, eh?

      >All I can say about the priestly accusation is that the author has absolutely no understanding of God's design for the order He set up for the priests. They were to depend on God alone. That the priests would take advantage of their positions proved they were more inclined to selfishness and abuse of their power than they were about honoring God. The "nobility" of their position was more important to them than the honor bestowed upon them by God, Himself, to be His leaders to the people.< [Citation needed]

      >Then the author again emphasizes her sexist ideas by stating that the Biblical texts were written by men. But if the men of the Bible days were truly sexist, then texts like Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5 and Proverbs 31 would not exist.<

      A shame you felt you needed to finish on the same unsubstantiated smear you opened with.

      You clearly don't believe a god of truth is watching you and certainly not a god who told you not to bear false witness.

      I expect many people reading this will now be wondering why you felt you needed to include unsubstantiated smears and even included false statements about the Bible. Was it because you knew you couldn't rebut the article using truth, honesty, reason and personal integrity?

      Perhaps you also think the god who told you not to bear false witness and to love your enemies is merely a figment of imagination and just something dishonest people use as an excuse for their otherwise unacceptable behaviour.

      Your posting certainly lends weight to that argument. Thank you for contributing it.

      Delete
  29. Well, Well, WEll, comments that run deeper than the very interesting original story...

    I detected an undercurrent of discussion about literal/non-literal interpretations, so heres my take on a couple thoughts:

    The admonition that eating of the fruit would cause death, should be taken with a grain or 2 of salt, that death would ensue, indeed, it did, eventually, immortality became mortality

    Then, in an earlier part of Genesis, we read the story of creation, and how, in 6 days, all was created.

    Now, I always had an issue with this. was it literally 6 days, or do we need another interpretation of this fairytale? what if a 'day' was, say, a billion years. Or two or 6 or whatever would tie in with what science and evolution are discovering?

    The first few books of the bible were penned by Moses, allegedly, and then later parts by other scholarly biblical characters. They each had a few years to put their tales together, after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your use of the phrase 'penned by' made a thought pop up. Moses, who was raised as a son of Pharaoh, would have written in hieroglyphs, I would think, if he wrote at all. Since the exodus from Egypt is fictitious, I would think the Moses character is as well.
      The Vatican has stated that the genesis story is not to be taken literally. Which cancels the 'original sin' and the need for redemption, by the way, rendering the whole mythology bankrupt. Theologians in christian mythology have stated that time, and the laws of nature, do not change unless it is specifically stated that the 'prime mythological entity' (my wording) is directing it.
      .

      Delete
  30. Interestingly (to me at least) Judaism had a different idea of the creation myth, since the Holy Bible gives two differing account of the creation of humans; one instance where a male and a female human are created simultaneously, and then later a woman is created for Adam. Judaism explained this using Lilith, the first woman. But Lilith did not obey Adam when he tried to breed with her…she was actually offended by the proposition. So God had to try again and He made Eve. Lilith later plays the part of the serpent who essentially tells Eve the truth about God’s lie and convinces her to eat the fruit. It’s also interesting that Adam and Eve were created as naive but Lilith must have possessed at least minimal knowledge to be so manipulative in pursuit of revenge against God, Adam and Eve. God then cursed Lilith to spend eternity slithering about the Earth on her belly and eating dust.
    One of the commenters above is right, either way the serpent is not Satan (sidebar: Satan isn’t a name, it is a word meaning “the accuser” and was used commonly as a description for anyone casting accusations onto another).

    The creation story of Judaism/Christianity has always been interesting to me. Not only the lie you mention and the implication of God making errors but also the multiple deities implied in biblical verse involved in the creation. It’s an enlightening story from the Bible, albeit entirely false.

    Great post, Rosa…as always.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You reasonably pointed out whole god's mendacity and founding on this you are atheist, right?
    What if to suppose that his lie is deliberate?

    ReplyDelete

Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers or by known sock-puppet accounts.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics