Genesis 3:6 - Is it correct or incorrect?

by bytheirworks 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • bytheirworks
    bytheirworks

    An examination of Genesis 3:6...

    In the 2013 NWT we read: "Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at."

    In the Douay-Rheims Bible we read: "And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold"

    HOWEVER...

    every other translation or version I've found uses the following phrases when describing the tree:

    "desired to give intelligence" or

    "desirable for making one wise" or

    "desirable for obtaining wisdom" or

    "a tree of covetousness to understand" or

    ...something else that's close to knowing or knowledge.

    What is the proper rendering?

  • adamah
    adamah

    The WTBTS picks and chooses which translations they follow, seemingly on a scripture-by-scripture basis. For Genesis 3:6, they make the questionable decision which a minority of other translators (Douay-Rheims) use to rely on the Greek Septuagint (!), rather than relying on the Hebrew scrolls (whether Masoretic or Samaritan Torah), since it better supported a Christian interpretation (when the original account wasn't written for Christianity, but Judaism).

    I discussed the issue in the following blog article:

    http://awgue.weebly.com/the-paradox-of-adam-and-eve-and-how-the-new-world-translation-fruitlessly-attempts-to-keep-it-hidden.html

    Adam

  • tornapart
    tornapart

    This is what the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has to say about the Hebrew word used....

    consider, expert, instruct, prosper, deal prudently, give skillful, have good success, teach,

    A primitive root; to be (causatively, make or act) circumspect and hence, intelligent -- consider, expert, instruct, prosper, (deal) prudent(-ly), (give) skill(-ful), have good success, teach, (have, make to) understand(-ing), wisdom, (be, behave self, consider, make) wise(- ly), guide wittingly.

    and Gill's Exposition says this about it.....

    a tree to be desired to make one wise; which above all was the most engaging, and was the most prevailing motive to influence her to eat of it, an eager desire of more wisdom and knowledge; though there was nothing she could see in the tree, and the fruit of it, which promised this; only she perceived in her mind, by the discourse she had with the serpent, and by what he had told her, and she believed, that this would be the consequence of eating this fruit, which was very desirable, and she concluded within herself that so it would be:

  • Wizard of Oz
    Wizard of Oz

    Since by the eating, we learned the difference between right and wrong; i.e. gained our conscience, the answer appears to be very clear. As an aside it would also appear, that the deity did not want us to achieve to this level of comprehension.

  • GLTirebiter
    GLTirebiter

    New Jerusalem Bible uses both senses in the translation:

    The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give...

    Likewise, the RSV (Catholic edition) translates it as:

    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...

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    A lot depends on your theology. Mine tends towards the latter interpretation, that the tree was one of knowledge. Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit in order for Christ's Atonement to effect mankind's progression. In other words, the fall of man was pre-planned with the intention of exalting man to levels impossible to attain for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve both had the capability of living forever, but they would have had their ability to progress severely retarded. This is a doctrine shared by both Mormonism and the Eastern Orthodox, both which believe man's fall and atonement were engineered to advance man to a potential of deification; in other words, for God's children to be able to become as God is.

    Man first had to attain a knowledge of good and evil, which was brought about by eating the "forbidden" fruit.

    Technically, however, the fruit was not forbidden. God simply said, "You shall not eat of it, lest you die." Or, originally, "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." They were told they could freely eat of any tree, but God told them not to partake of the forbidden fruit because it would introduce death into the world, and He could not be seen as actively advocating it. It had to be man's choice. At the same time, it was necessary and God had already set up the plan by which man could be redeemed. In other words, Jehovah had already been chosen and ordained to bring about man's redemption and thus becoming co-heirs with Christ of everything that the Father had. It's also important to understand that Satan did not lie to man. He was right in saying that man would not die...immediately, and he was accurate in saying they would become as the Gods [Elohim], knowing good from evil. But he lied in making them think they would not become subject to death.

    When they partook of the fruit, they immediately had their eyes opened to good and evil and began to understand they had been deceived. The Father, however, could not overlook the fact that man had sinned, and, according to the dictates of Justice, He had to appoint an intercessor, an advocate and redeemer. This was Jehovah, who later was born as Christ. It's difficult to read the "old" testament and not see the same names and titles of Jesus being applied to Jehovah (Savior, Redeemer, King of Kings, Lord of Lords; First and Last; Shepherd, etc.). In Psalms 110:1-2, David writes, "The LORD saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." But who was David's Lord by Jehovah? And if Jehovah was the second Lord, who was the first? According to the new testament writers, the first Lord was the Father.

    Once man's (and Earth's) redemption is complete, Jehovah will present the glorified Earth back to the Father and his work will be completely fulfilled. And even though the Atonement is complete, we're still to ask the Father for the things we need in the name of Christ. Evangelicals don't understand the distinction because I've heard them pray to Jesus and then say, "We ask these things in thy name."

  • insearchoftruth4
    insearchoftruth4

    It doesn't make any sense, it was just eating fruit from a forbidden tree, a lie to try to be immortal, they disobeyed, losers! ok!! Why not Forgive them?

    especially when they feel grief or sadness for what they did, just like we commit sins today, if we do or say something wrong to other people like

    I ate some of your tortillas cause they look so good and now I feel real bad! I'm sorry man!! "REALLY".. Can you forgive him or her? I

    think so..it's a MINOR THING. Mercy and forgiveness is what saves, not a death sacrifice of an innocent faithful Person, In fact that concept is in complete

    contrast in Eze. 18:20

    So Instead of original sin, original forgiveness makes more sense (at least imo)

    insot4

  • prologos
    prologos

    We can be sure that ALL of the many fruit in the garden, and WT illustrations, were enticing, perfect, like the displays in a supermarkets. but

    It was the words of the talking snake recorded in Gen3;5: "--you are bound to be like God, KNOWING-- "*

    that prompted Eve to take a closer look, giving that produce priority in her chewing choice.

    If the text calls for the mention of that thinking of Eve, rather than the appearance of the fruit, then

    it would be dishonest to hide it.

    BSW: there was an episode in WT material where the Governing Body (now the FADS) is seen spending time to make the weighty decision of the colour of a fruit in a soon- to- be- printed WT publication.

    a telling moment caught on Camera.

    *should be using NNWT, but are waiting to get one.

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    The NWT goes along with the reading in the LXX/Syriac/Vulgate. (See NWT Ref. Bible Ftn.)

    The LXX reads, kai horaion esti tou katanoesai, which C. L. Brenton translates, ". . . and beautiful to contemplate."

    (katanoeo is Strong's # 2656/ the corresponding Hebrew is # 7919. Gen. 3:6 in the LXX is v. 7)

    The NWT appears to take the kai/waw as explanatory, rendering it as "yes." Thus, "yes the tree was pleasing to look at," becomes an emphatic comment on the previous phrase, "and that it [the tree] was desirable to look upon."

    Here's what the 1953 NWT footnote to Genesis 3:6 says about it:

    "To look upon." This rendering agrees with the LXX, Vg and Sy. Some prefer to render the Hebrew verb here, "to impart wisdom (intelligence; prudence)."

    Why the NWT 'prefers not to render the Hebrew verb' is not stated. In my (admittedly) limited reference material I can't find any textual reason for why the NWT would see fit to omit the verb. None of the commentaries I have on it note any issues with it. Like ColdSteel said, the difference may be "theological." But exactly what the issue might be, I have no idea.

    (Incidentally, some of the editor formatting still does not work.)

  • jhine
    jhine

    Cold Steel , I am not sure what you mean by the term Evangelical , as a member of the Anglican Church I would not consider myself Evangelical , not that that matters because I do not like labelling people who are followers of Christ . They are all my brothers and sisters .

    I do pray to pray to Jesus and and ask things of HIm because He said in John 14 :13

    "And I will do whatever you ask in my name so that the Son may bring glory to the Father . "

    Jan

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit