OK, here's another "Hmmmm" bible-thread

by robhic 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  robhic

  Gen 3:22 And Jehovah 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- (ASV)

  OK, putting aside all the trinitarian implications and the contradictory/chronological problems in Genesis so as not to cloud the issue, how can this (above) be accurate?

  Jehovah, creator of the universe, almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing, supreme sovreign and master of all things has concentrated his abilities and power into an apple on a tree in a newly-created paradise? I mean, even faith should have its limits. And a mere human who took one bite of this fruit has now become "...as one of us..." -- an equal to God (or whomever he was speaking to)? And taking another bite from another fruit from another tree in this newly-created paradise would then give Adam and Eve eternal life?

  If they were even slightly equal, why didn't they surprise Jehovah and kick his ass or use some of their newly-acquired powers (there were two of them and only one of him) to throw him out? And before all this happened, Jehovah was strolling thru the garden and Adam and Eve hid from him and he couldn't find them. How can an all-knowing being not know something? Doesn't that negate the "all-knowing" aspect? Why didn't they continue to hide until they could formulate a workable plan to get past this? They had become somewhat equal.

  I am not trying to start an argument because I truly think this is a "feel-good" story written to instill a little (a lot?) fear and awe into a primitive group of nomadic herdsmen. I'd just be curious to hear from some who are much more learned in this area than I am about why anybody could read this (and other parts) using even simple logic or a critical eye and think it is a true story? I can see the ancient Hebrews buying into this bullshit but, c'mon, modern, educated, 21st Century adults? It boggles my mind...

  Robert
• 

  Leolaia

  The primeval history of Genesis 2-11 has a repeated theme which was borrowed from Babylonian mythology: although man may aspire to divinity, the gods will make sure to put him in his place. The tower of Babel story is an example of this. Genesis 3:22 makes clear that one may become a god if one 1) has eternal life and 2) godlike wisdom. One can have one but not both. Man was invited to have eternal life but banned from having divine knowledge and when Adam chose to have the latter, Yahweh banished man from Eden to prevent him from "becoming like one of us" by eating of the tree of life. A similar story can be found from Babylonian mythology where it was the other way around -- Adapa had divine wisdom and the god Ea invited him to eat from the food and drink of life, but one of the lesser gods deceived Adapa to reject the food of life to prevent him from becoming a god. This was a very ancient attempt to explain why man is so much smarter from the beasts of the field, yet is only a mortal and lacks the eternal life the other gods are supposed to have. I think in the modern age we can explain the same problem in a rather different way with science.
• 

  Narkissos

  Two links on an interesting site:

  http://www.bibleorigins.net/EdensTreeofKnowledgeLife.html

  http://www.bibleorigins.net/genesisgenesis.html
• 

  a Christian

  Robert, You wrote, "It boggles my mind..." That much seems clear. I have a suggestion. Rather than referring to all parts of the Bible which do not now make sense to you as "bullshit," consider the possibility that you might not now properly understand this passage, and other passages, of Scripture. Granted, the story of Adam and Eve as most often understood by someone after engaging in a mere cursory reading of Genesis chapters two and three makes little sense. But maybe God did not intend for it to make sense to such readers. Now I suppose you may reply by saying that if the Bible is the word of God then it should have been written in such a way that the true meaning of all of its contents would be easily understood by all. That may be your opinion. If it is you are entitled to it. However, I believe the Bible itself indicates that it is an incorrect opinion. For I believe that the Bible itself indicates that God most likely inspired the Bible to be written in such a way that it would serve two purposes. First, that it would help those who have hearts inclined toward God to understand His will and purposes, and second that it would, at the same time, conceal His will and purposes from those whose hearts are inclined against God.
  
  To me this seems quite likely when I consider the fact that Jesus Christ Himself is the God of the Bible. He is not just the God of the New Testament but He was in fact also the great "I Am" of the Old Testament. (John 8:58) How does keeping this fact in mind help us to understand that the Bible was most likely written to both reveal and conceal the thoughts of God? By remembering how Jesus taught. Mark tells us that whenever Jesus spoke to crowds of people which contained both His friends and His enemies, "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything. " (Mark 4:34) Why did Jesus speak in parables? Why did He go to all the trouble of telling such often hard to understand stories to crowds which gathered to hear Him speak? Was the purpose of the parables to help all who listened to Jesus come to clearly understand the deep things of God? No, it was not. In fact often Jesus' purpose in speaking the way that He did was just the opposite. Jesus told His disciples, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that though seeing they may not see and though hearing they may not understand." (Luke 8:10)
  
  Jesus understood that many of His listeners had hearts hardened against Him, and from such people, through the use of parables, He deliberately withheld "the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God." He did so by incorporating into those parables elements which He knew His enemies would find fault with or stumble over.
  
  Now, remember, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Heb. 13:8) Is it any wonder then that God caused the Bible to be written in the same way that He, as Jesus Christ, spoke to audiences which contained both His friends and His enemies? Remember, He did so in a way that would give His enemies opportunity to find fault and His true disciples opportunity to gain "the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God." And the Bible's audience is made up of the same kinds of people who listened to Jesus' parables, is it not? And since the entire Bible was inspired by the speaker of those parables, it makes sense that the entire Bible would be written in the same way that Christ's parables were spoken. In a way that would give some the opportunity to find fault and stumble and others the opportunity to learn "the secrets of the kingdom of God." Mike
• 

  Flash

  I don't take this scripture in an completely literal sense. "Like God" in awareness of right and wrong, yes, in power and ability, no. God enabling these trees to trigger a response (knowledge) or a condition (life) is something I think is completely possible.

  For God to choose to 'live in the moment' and let life flow on it's own, I think is reasonable and understandable. Were would the joy of spontaneity be, or in this case, sorrow. My personal opinion on how God is aware or knows 'all things', is that his mind is divided into conscious and subconscious like ours is. So when a sparrow falls to the earth He is aware of it at a subconscious level. Like our brain 'knows' how many hair follicles we have, (or in my case, don't have). I believe creation is an extension of Jehovah's very being, He being the 'mind' creation being His body.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I do not see what the problem is --the bible is a lovely collection of stories. Do you honestly think when I go to the movies and see a holywood flick I really believe some of the extremely implausible story lines -no -- it is a good story -- no different with the bible -- Genesis is a good story.
• 

  Golf

  Robhic, this is just food for thought. I designed and erected my own commercial building. I hired some expert carpenters and these professional carpenters couldn't figure out how I was going to 'secure' steel beams on a wooden walls and how I was going to 'secure' plywood on steel beams. Experts as they are, I showed them. When I hoisted long and heavy roof trusses 'without' a crane on a two story building, they couldn't figure out how I did it. Since they were not on the scene when I hoisted the trusses with my sons, again, I explained. Just because we can't understand something or it may look stupid and impossible, somebody seems to come up with the solution. My question has always been, explain the Pyramids. Some stones have been known to weighed 200 tons and the height of the structure is awesome. YOU, ME AND OTHERS cannot explain the construction of such a wonder. We can only assume, speculate it's construction, yet, we believe without an explanation. Let just say for a moment that there were no visable Pyramids, but 'only' on paper. Would you have believed that such a wonder of the world existed because you didn't see it or can't explain it?

  Here's a thought, how can you remove a (to be) transplanted tree out of the ground without a crane? If you can explain the construction of a Pyramid, you should have no problems solving this minor problem. As I said, it's only food for thought.

  Guest 77
• 

  Abaddon

  If I were god I'd be really offended by this line of logic;

  And since the entire Bible was inspired by the speaker of those parables, it makes sense that the entire Bible would be written in the same way that Christ's parables were spoken. In a way that would give some the opportunity to find fault and stumble and others the opportunity to learn "the secrets of the kingdom of God."

  Okay, let's first take an example which shows how fallacious the reasoning given here is. Say the parable of the Good Samaritan and Numbers Chapter 31.

  In the the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus shows how two supposedly upstanding members of the community bypassed the victim of a violent assault whilst a third person, not even a member of the same community, showed far greater love by lending assistance.

  Now, unless one were pretty unreasonable, it would be hard to be stumbled by this, showing the assertion in the above quote ("In a way that would give some the opportunity to find fault and stumble...") to be false.

  At the same time, Numbers 31 shows it's very easy to find the opposite in the Bible, a passage that it is hard for a reasonable person to NOT be 'stumbled' by. In this chapter we are told how YHWH asks the Israelites to kill all the men, women and boys, but to keepoa live the virgin girls. Anyone who knows their Mosaic Law will realise there are rules for how female captives may be married off. Likewise, anyone knowing their history will realise that 14 was probably the average age of marriage at that point, and that as far as the Mosaic Law was concerned, the marriage of captives was not neccesarily with their consent.

  So, we supposedly have the Lord God telling the Israelites to go and get some little girls, whom they could forcably marry; a wonderful provision, being raped by the same people who hacked your entire family to death. Wrong in Rwanda. Wrong in Bosnia. Wrong in the Palestine -both then and now.

  Any reasonable person would be appaled or 'stumbled' by this, yet the above quote implies that such a stumbling would be deliberate on account of the author of the Bible, an intentional result of the way the account is written, to presumably sort those who love god from those who do not.

  Quite how such tomfoolery is neccesary when we are told god can see into our hearts, I don't know, but that's just an aside.

  Rather than say, "well, maybe this is just what a person of that period thought was god's will, but looked at today is pretty standard as far as the time-period goes, and obviously isn't direct inspiration as there's no way a god of love would approve of child rape like that", the writer of the above quote is asking us to believe that god (who can see our hearts) either put this into the Bible (when it didn't happen) to test us OR (if it did happen) had this happen to test us.

  A simple choice; the Bible was written as you'd expect it to be written at the time it was written, or god plays silly games.

  Whilst it is pretty obvious which is the most logical choice of the two above, accepting the Bible "was written as you'd expect it to be written at the time it was written" (i.e. is not inspired of god and accurate) means letting go of all the exclusivity and specificity. If you accept that, the Bible becomes just another guide by men who sought god.

  Doing this, opening one's heart and mind to trying to conceive what god may be like free of the illogical restrictions of texts written by bronze-age goatherds, is directly against the political and religious agenda of many conservative and fundamental Christians.

  By insisting on the divine authorship and accuracy of the Bible, they can insist that their (interpretation) is correct and that those disagreeing with it are wrong, which normally means bad, which normally means we should change laws so people are punished for acting in that way.

  Thus, in what is one of the most absurd contradictions of belief one can see (and it's not just restricted to Christians), people insist on a strict literalistic interpretation (where disagreement with the text is a sign that you're not the right sort of person), and become worshipers of a book, rather than using the supposedly god-given discernment they have to distinguish fact from fable and to distinguish guidance to live our lives in a more spritual manner from blood-thirsty ancient texts, and trying to worship god in spirit.

  It's really sad, and gets on my nerves, just as the Pharasees really got on Jesus' nerves for doing fundamentally the same thing.

  Strain the gnat and swallow the camel, isn't it?
• 

  Brummie

  I gots to hand it to you Leolaia, you always make an interesting read.
• 

  hornetsnest

  Well, interesting, yes, but not necessarily accurate. Leolaia repeats a very wide spread misconception that I've commented on a few times before on this forum. I find the observation that the Bible came from the ancient Chaldean myths due to their similarities as disengenuous at best, particularly since they are written from opposite viewpoints.

  What you have here is just the same thing as one would find in comparing two histories written about the Gulf war, one written by Saddaam, and the other by Bush. There would be lots of similarities, but the spirit would be at cross-purposes.

  LoneWolf