In the Bible: God Lied and Satan Didn't

[Popol Vuh]

In the first pages of the Bible God straight out lied and Satan told the truth. God told Eve and Adam if they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge that it'll kill them. Satan told Eve that it won't kill them.

So the Bible's version of things is that God lied and Satan told the truth. And since the Bible is suppose to be the word of God, but, since the Bible's version of God is that he's a liar and Satan speaks the truth over God. How can anyone who believes in a God believe the Bible?

:shrug:

[Avalux]

1. That must be why the fundie GOPers are all liars.

:shrug: I guess they rationalize God lied to Adam and Eve for their own good. You know - the 'ends justifies the means' mentality we see so often from them.

[angrycarpenter]

2. the assumption

Is that Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate the fruit. God has carried a grudge about it ever since.

[cyborg_jim]

10. Then why did he worry about the "Tree of Life"?

[DeSwiss]

26. Wait a minute...

...THE ASSUMPTION IS??? So you're saying that everything then relies upon an assumption?

There were TWO trees in the garden according to this biblical myth. One was the Tree of Life. And the other was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Genesis 2: 9 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.

Adam and Eve were only told not to partake of the latter or they would surely die, not the former. But there is nothing in the bible which said that they ever partook of the former. But they didn't surely die upon consuming the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam lived for 930 years. I suppose we can "assume" that the words surely die means 930 years later.

- So yes, god lied in this mythical tale. And it is just one of many other lies to be found there...

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Read this. By my reading post #2 is wrong, but its interesting stuff.

Gen 3:22

http://bible.cc/genesis/3-22.htm

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--
so the tree of life was also off limits???

Also mankind doesn't get the tree of life, until the end* of the Bible when Jesus appears as the "bright and morning star", (That's Lucifer in Latin) seemingly completing the work of the serpent. Its always tripped me out.

* Rev 2 : 7

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

[msongs]

4. lovely fairytales one and all, suitable for justifying the most appalling behavior nt

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. I think appalling behavior has always stood alone.

Neither Marduk or Ra nor Odin can be blamed, these were the stories of old people passed on wisdom through, part of our heritage.

[pingzing58]

108. A cultures foundational stories help explain why things are the way they are.

This jewish foundational story teaches why there is death. What happens when God is disobeyed. What happens when one listens to someone other than God and gives in to temptation. Why men make a living by the sweat of their brow. Why women suffer at childbirth. Why men should not listen to women. Why there is hope for eternal life. etc.

[Popol Vuh]

7. Indeed

And what also has always tripped me out about that verse is: "Behold, the man has become like one of US..."

"Us"? More than one God? But, but, but....I thought that the same Bible preaches that there's only but one God?


And this isn't the only verse that mentions there's more than just one God. At the top of my head you can also read it in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah as well as else where in Genesis.

[classof56]

8. Well, in mainstream evangelical fundamentalist Christianity there's this belief in

The Trinity--Triune God, three in one, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. You know, Christian theology is primarily based on faith, as the writer of Hebrews (NT) defined it, being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Heb. 11:1 NIV). Read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman and you'll be totally amazed about how we got our New Testament--it's a carefully researched accounting by a man (Ehrman) who was once a born-again Christian but who now is an agnostic (I just bought his book "God's Problem", about his new-found lack of faith). It makes sense to me (lifelong now lapsed Baptist), but as I see it, we can believe or not, it's our choice. I just make it a practice of not being too hard on those whose faith is so deep it's the essence of their being. How will any of us really know until the moment when we've taken our last breath of life? Meanwhile, people need all the help they can get to make it through that life, and if it's a belief that doesn't jibe with mine or someone else's, so be it. Of course I'd prefer they not shove their dogma down my throat, and if they try I'm ready for them. I do like and adhere to the things Jesus said as included in the NT, regardless of how they got there or in fact if he even existed and said them. I admire the Red Letter Christians, who translate Jesus' words into action.

Tired Old Cynic

[Popol Vuh]

9. Not sure what you mean by mainstream

But the idea of the "Trinity" isn't just evangelical belief. It also isn't just a Christian belief because most so-called mainstream religions have three entities.

Nevertheless, in corroboration to my references above suggesting the Bible refers to multiple Gods. I'll post these examples below which also suggest that the Bible doesn't say God "created" man.

Psalms 82:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

A congregation of Gods? More than one God? Sounds Pagan.

Gensis 3-22:

"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."

And as you can see, as napoleon_in_rags pointed out, this verse doesn't suggest only a loss of immortality. Actually, if anything, on the contrary. It suggests that eating the fruit gained them immortality. But of course we all know that also isn't true.

Gensis 11-6 & 7:

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

Another reference to "us".

Gensis 1-26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness......"

Notice besides the reference again to multiple Gods, this sentence also shows that the Bible (the word of God) doesn't say that God created man. Nope, instead, what the Bible says is that the Gods (plural) made man in their image. Meaning, that man already existed and the Gods (supposedly) took him and made him in their image.

So much for the creationist theorists. Their book suggest some type of genetic manipulation or something instead of some invisible man in the sky snapping his fingers.

Gensis 2-8:

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Formed? Put? Here again the Bible suggests that God didn't create man, but, rather, that he formed him. Forming something is reshaping something that already exists.

Also to corroborate this is the use of the word "put". The Bible doesn't say that God created man in the garden of eden. Nope, what it is saying is that God took man who already existed and reshaped him in his own image and then put him in a garden he planted for him.

Gensis 1-28:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Replenish? Looks like the Bible again is saying the earth was already inhabited by man (who he then took a couple and reshaped them into his own image) and he wants Adam and Eve to go out and replenish it with their sort by subduing the rest. Very interesting, but I thought Adam and Eve were suppose to be the first.

[classof56]

15. Okay, I'm crying Uncle.

All your points are good, well-researched and clearly articulated. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, only trying to explain the viewpoint of what I consider to be mainstream Bible-believing Christians. When it comes to the Old Testament, I'm sure a Hebrew scholar would better explain it. But I'm no apologist, and I've known a few good ones, and there's a reason I try to avoid discussing or debating religious beliefs. People's minds are pretty well made up and it's not my purpose to undermine anyone's faith. Like I said before--we won't really know until we take our last breath, and maybe not even then. I just entered my 8th decade so it might not be that long 'til I find out, now that I think about it! Meanwhile, while we live we're free to believe or not and for whatever reason. Might mention that I've known a lot of Biblical literalists, the jot-and-tittle types and there's no changing their minds, either.

Blessings,

Tired Old Cynic

[Raejeanowl]

6. That's A Very Literal Interpretation

Of something you cannot interpret literally.

Adam and Eve lost their "eternal life." They became as mortal as we, and worse; they had no possibility of a happy spiritual eternity. They lost the protection and care of Eden. They had to go to work, scrounge for food, and suffer pain and deprivation.

Satan told Eve that they would become like gods.

Christ had to die to redeem the possibility of eternal life for others. That's how it goes. God did not "lie."

Plenty of problems "believing in the Bible." This minor misapprehension of yours isn't one of them.

[cyborg_jim]

11. That's A Very Liberal Intepretation

It's pretty easy to just make stuff up to retro-fit it to a story.

Have you got any evidence for the correctness of interpreting that story in that way apart from that it achieves a particular interpretation?

[trotsky]

12. The key to bible interpretation seems to be...

"If I don't like what it says, then I am free to invent a contorted how-it-could-have-been scenario to avoid the problem."

Odd thing is, liberal as well as fundie believers use it.

[moggie]

17. Shaw said it best

"No man ever believes that the bible means what it says: he is always convinced that it says what he means".

[Dorian Gray]

14. Oddly

that's how most people I know interpret it as well. Though I don't really know any Bible literalists.

[John Gauger]

79. "Can't be interpreted literally."

How is that phrase different from "has no bearing on or semblance to reality?"

[Dorian Gray]

13. It's a serpent

not really satan. (In the Bible.)

And the fruit DID kill them. They were set to live eternally until they ate the fruit. Then they became all too human, and the sin would lead to their mortal death.

[cyborg_jim]

18. "They were set to live eternally until they ate the fruit."

Which part of Genesis indicates this?

[Dorian Gray]

37. The part where God says

(From King James):

"6And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But 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."


The interpretation of those passages is pretty much accepted that A & E wouldn't have died if they didn't eat from the tree.


Not that it matters. I don't read Genesis literally anyhow.

[cyborg_jim]

77. Uh, clearly you don't

Because not a jot of that says anything about the mortal status of Adam and Eve pre eating of fruit.

Reading that into the text requires seeing words that aren't there.

[John Gauger]

78. That doesn't mean that they were immortal.

That just says that they would have died that day. If I say, "Don't shoot yourself in the face, for in the day thou shootest therein thou shalt surely die," that doesn't mean that that's the only way that it is possible for you to die. You could die any infinite number of ways.

Further, it said they will die that day. Adam lived another 900 years. That's what we call a false promise. Of course, it's all moot because none of it ever happened. But still, it's surprising that that isn't thrown out.

[trotsky]

21. Are you sure about that?

"They were set to live eternally until they ate the fruit."

Genesis 3:22-24
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Why would there have been a "tree of life" in the first place if god had initially planned for mankind to live forever?

[Dorian Gray]

39. That happened after

they ate from the tree of Good and Evil. They were allowed to eat from the tree of life prior to eating from the tree of good and evil. But this was their punishment for disobeying God's commandment.

[trotsky]

41. Where does it say they were allowed to eat from that tree previously? n/t

[Dorian Gray]

44. In the story

(A story that I, in no way, read literally...), God told them that they were allowed to eat from every single tree in the Garden, except for the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Genesis 2:15


15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


It is Genesis 3:22-24 that your quote came from:


22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


(Tree of life and Tree of Good and Evil were two different trees.)

[trotsky]

53. You say you don't read it literally...

but here you are, defending the literal interpretation with considerable dedication.

Anyway, yes, I am aware there were two trees in the story. I'm afraid you're just not getting my point.

[Dorian Gray]

60. I'm not defending the Literal interpretation...

just my own interpretation of the story. I don't believe that the earth was created in 7 days, nor do I really put much credence into the existance of Adam and Eve. But, i do think that the story, just as any other story out there (I was an English major, and I'm an avid reader) has correct interpretations. And I do believe that story has something important to say about choice and free will, and the themes of this story are existent in literature and art throughout many ages.

The whole premise of the story, as I understand it, is that they could have lived forever in Eden. Without care. But by disobeying God, through the exercise of their Will, they lost their ignorant paradise.

From there we can argue about whether that a just God would punish them in such a way or whether He isn't punishing them, but they turned their backs on Him, but that would be more of the same.

And, I'd also put in my two cents about fictional works like Hamlet or Anna Karenina if I thought that they were misinterpreted or misrepresented. It doesn't mean that I believe them to be the literal truth.

[trotsky]

64. Sure you are.

And the fundies couldn't be happier for your hard work helping them. Why not confront the person who takes it literally?

[Dorian Gray]

82. Why confront anyone at all?

If I thought that you totally misinterpreted Hamlet, I'd post my thoughts and my interpretation of that as well. Doesn't mean I believe Hamlet to be the "literal truth."

I thought that this whole topic (from the OP) was based upon a misinterpretation of the Genesis chapters 1-3. And there is a much accepted interpretation, though of course that even varies from person to person and religious sect to religious sect. But, one of most common concepts behind the story is that they chose death with their CHOICE to ignore God's commands. It's a fundamental (small F) Judeo-Christian understanding of the reading, and I don't know why my pointing that out to you means that I'm in any way condoning Fundamentalism at its worst.

Again, you disagree with that, as well. So be it.

[trotsky]

88. I'll give you three reasons.

Robertson, Hagee, and the (thankfully) late Jerry Falwell.

In case you hadn't noticed, letting these literalist idiots run free without confrontation hasn't exactly worked.

But at least liberal Christians are consistent. They don't confront those literalists, and they won't confront literalists on DU. They'd much rather join in AGAINST the atheist who's arguing with a literalist. Strange stuff.

[Sanctified]

16. So Adam and Eve are still alive? n/t

[trotsky]

19. Genesis 2:17

NIV: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

KJV: 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.

NASB: but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.

ESV: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

We can check some other versions if you want, but it seems pretty consistent among translations that A&E were to die almost immediately upon eating the forbidden fruit. Trying to dodge and say that because they must have *eventually* died, god didn't lie, is terribly dishonest.

[cyborg_jim]

20. A day to God is as a thousand years.

There's always an out.

[ZombieHorde]

23. So, would you apply this to every duration in the bible...

or only when it is convenient to do so?

[cyborg_jim]

24. Only when convenient obviously.

[Sanctified]

25. It's terribly dishonest...

to imply that they were mortal before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were immortal, once they had eaten the fruit they lost their immortality and began to die just as we begin to die from the second we are born.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve were immortal?

I don't believe that it does. There is no reason, that I can think of, to believe that Adam and Eve were immortal before the apple(fruit)/talking snake events.

[Sanctified]

30. There were two significant trees mentioned in Genesis.

The first being the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the second being the tree of life. God said that Adam and Eve were free to eat the fruit of any tree except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was only after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil did God drive man from the garden to prevent him from eating from the tree of life and living forever once he became mortal.

If God made man mortal and intended for him to stay that way He would have forbade man from eating from the tree of life like He forbade him from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Does it say anywhere in the Bible what the tree of life actually did?

Does god know the future?

How can god have a divine plan if he does not know the future?

It was either gods plan for man to fall, or there is no divine plan.

[Sanctified]

34. Genesis 3:22 explains what the tree of life did.

"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:"

[ZombieHorde]

38. Does god know the future?

Was it part of the Divine Plan for man to fall?

Why would god put poison (the tree) in the middle of the garden? If a parent leaves poison out, and the children eat it, the parent is to blame.

[Sanctified]

43. Yes, God knows the future.

Yes, God knew man would fall. Growing up I had oleander trees in my back yard which are pretty but very poisonous, my parents instructed me at a very young age to never eat it for I would die, I would not have blamed my parents if I had eaten oleander leaves and died.

[ZombieHorde]

75. Would you leave poison out where kids could eat it?

[Dorian Gray]

47. It's all about Free WIll

It's not about poisoning someone, but allowing people to make their own destinies through choice.

[trotsky]

52. Do you think the police and/or child services...

would accept your explanation of "Hey, I just left the poison there on the coffee table. The kid exercised his free will to drink it. It's obviously not my fault." ??

[Sanctified]

54. Do you have any poisonous plants in your backyard?

As a small child like many residents where I lived I had oleander trees in my backyard which are very poisonous. Today I have water hemlock that grows near the water preserve in my backyard. My children know not to eat water hemlock but if they did I highly doubt the police or child services would do very much.

[trotsky]

55. Not even close to the same.

Sorry you can't understand how terrible your story seems to the rest of us.

[Sanctified]

57. How is it not the same, I could go out every year and remove the hemlock

and my parents could have not planted the oleanders. If anything my parents planting oleanders is closer as an example than your joke about poison on a coffee table.

[trotsky]

59. Alright, if you insist.

Here are just some of the ways your analogy fails miserably.

1) Your parents didn't create oleanders.

2) They also didn't "create" you. Not in the same way your god supposedly created humans, knowing full well what they would do and how they would act.

3) How old would you have to be, to fully understand your parents and their instructions not to eat a certain plant?

4) Did they plant other fruit-bearing plants and tell you to eat freely of them? Or, if they set some oleander down at the table with a whole bunch of food that WAS okay to eat, would that still make them innocent?

I could go on, but there's really no point. You are committed to an ancient story being literally true.

[John Gauger]

80. Of course not....

What are you crazy? If I had kids, I certainly wouldn't keep poisonous trees around, for fear that they would be harmed. Haven't you ever disobeyed your parents, even once? So why do you trust your children not to eat from the tree? I find your attitude towards the prospect of your children being poisoned alarmingly nonchalant. Do you keep guns around the house? I certainly hope that you would not do so on the sole safeguard that you have told your children that guns are dangerous.

[Dorian Gray]

61. Obviously not....

but Adam and Eve were presented as adults with the Will of adults.

And it's just a story.

[trotsky]

66. "And it's just a story."

Then help break it to the literalist instead of defending the story as being literally true.

Honestly, it really seems like tolerant believers would much rather oppose the atheists than oppose the radical and rigid elements of their own religion. Harris and Dawkins are apparently right.

[ZombieHorde]

73. Exactly, Humans are more ethical than god.

[ZombieHorde]

74. How would they know that it was wrong to disobey god if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

[Dorian Gray]

85. Good question....

I don't know. Ask a theologian.

[Goblinmonger]

98. So they had to take the tree of life

in order to live forever, ergo they were not immortal. QED.

[Dorian Gray]

46. When God banishes them from Eden

This is what happens:

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


Implying, as punishment, they are no longer allowed to eat from the Tree of Life, so their souls are now mortal.


I don't care if you don't believe the story. I don't. But, i do think that the interpretation is pretty standard.

[ZombieHorde]

76. Yea your right. I have actually read that before and forgot. Thanks.

[trotsky]

29. If Adam and Eve were immortal,

why did your god also create a Tree of Life™ that granted immortality? Who would have needed it?

[Sanctified]

31. I don't know who would have needed it, who needed a tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If Adam and Eve were mortal and were supposed to stay that way I would suspect that God would have forbade them from eating of the tree of life like he did the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[trotsky]

32. So you admit the whole story makes no sense.

Excellent. A step in the right direction!

[Sanctified]

35. Of course the story is hard for us to comprehend with our limited knowledge of how God works.

Just as a tribal person who lives in the remote jungles of South America has no comprehension on how electricity works.

[trotsky]

36. Totally inaccurate analogy.

The point is, you were asked where it was said in the bible that Adam & Eve were immortal. You couldn't do it.

So instead you had to engage in some theological contortions and avoid answering the question. I've seen the pattern over and over and over. It's like a defense mechanism - you don't want to dwell on the questions that you can't answer, so you twist and dodge, and if all else fails, throw your hands up and say essentially, "We cannot possibly understand how god thinks." Period, end of discussion.

*yawn*

[Sanctified]

40. If you require a Biblical quote then I will submit to you Romans 5:12

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

[trotsky]

42. That's a later revision.

Not part of the original story. You need to show where it says Adam & Eve were immortal prior to eating the forbidden fruit.

Or you can just release your vice-like grip on the literal fundamentalist reading. You'll be able to grow so much as a person.

[Sanctified]

45. Well if one like myself believes that the Bible is the Word of God.

Then it really does not matter in what order the explanations of events come for they are all from the same book and same Author who does not change.

Hebrews 13:8

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

[trotsky]

50. Yup.

About as I figured you'd bail out of this one.

[Sanctified]

56. When you read a book do you digress with an authors opening statements

because he does not provide facts to those statements till later in the book? I feel like we are having a circular conversation here, you asked from where in Bible do I base my beliefs and I showed you but then you changed your question to where in Genesis 1 and 2 does it state this. My assumptions being that any evidence I provide from the Bible you would disagree with even though it's the very Book we are discussing.

[trotsky]

58. Look, your faith is obviously very fragile.

It depends on a collection of stories being literally true. You have built yourself a safe little fortress to hide those beliefs in, to keep yourself from questioning them too much. You will stretch and reach however much is necessary to defend your literalist religion of book-worship. (And you do worship a book when you require it to be literal truth.)

Your analogy, by the way, of a single author explaining himself later, is of course ridiculously flawed. The people who wrote the stories in the NT were different and came long after those who wrote the stories of the OT. Their bias is to prove and/or support the mythology that came before them. Not to mention the dozens of translators, copiers, editors, and compilers who came centuries later.

Enjoy worshiping your book.

[Sanctified]

63. If my faith were fragile I would probably avoid

theological debates with individuals who know little to nothing about the actual contents of the Bible. However I enjoy discussing and debating the meaning of passages within the Bible and have never felt that my faith has been tested by partaking in them. In fact I would go so far as to say one could never truly know the Bible or their faith in it without debating its subject matter.

Now I know that you are not stupid and you probably consider yourself to be somewhat scholarly so your point about a single author is a side step to avoid the theological discussion about the Bible being Divinely inspired. I am sure you can comprehend that there are many literary works in the world which were dictated or are biographies and if you can wrap your mind around that then I am sure you could understand that a Being who can speak a word and form worlds could also manage to find someone to put His words to paper.

[trotsky]

65. Please.

your point about a single author is a side step to avoid the theological discussion about the Bible being Divinely inspired

You're begging the question. You can't point to the "divine inspiration" of the bible until you've proven it. Go ahead. Prove it.

I am sure you could understand that a Being who can speak a word and form worlds could also manage to find someone to put His words to paper.

And as soon as you demonstrate such a being exists, then you can start working on defining what it can or can't do. And be sure to cite the evidence leading you to that conclusion.

Oh, and in case this wasn't readily evident to a scholar such as yourself, to point back to the bible for all of the above is circular reasoning, and invalid.

Good luck.

[Sanctified]

69. Trotsky you always bring a smile to my face.

Your predictability is always amusing, you will use questions like, "why did your god..." but when you receive your answer you twist it to, "And as soon as you demonstrate such a being exists...". In all honesty when discussing the Bible with someone who does not believe in it I would much rather hold the debate with someone who called it a book of "fairy tales" and admitted that they knew nothing of it's content over someone who pretended like they actually knew something about it. At least with the "fairy tales" person I can immediately understand why they fail to understand the most basic principals of the Bible while with the pretender it takes a minute or two to realize they know nothing of which they speak.

[trotsky]

70. The smile comes from recognizing your own circular reasoning.

I understand that you cannot meet my challenge. No literalist such as yourself can. It demonstrates the futility of your limited view of Christianity.

[Sanctified]

71. Trotsky no answer I provide for you would bring you satisfaction.

Now you may have the final word.

[trotsky]

72. Final word? You have to have said something to offer someone else the final word.

Instead you just offered another dodge because you know you have no answers, only canned responses from Sunday School. A pity.

[Dorian Gray]

49. Immortal may be the wrong word....

It's not like they were Highlander. Or a Vampire. (But if a vamp can be killed, is it truly immortal?)

But, they were provided with a paradise and a means for living eternally. But they were also provided with a Will.

[trotsky]

51. See, this is exactly what people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins mean...

when they say that religious moderates enable the fundies.

Here you are, attempting to defend the allegory as if it were real, as if you truly believed it like a fundie, giving perfect cover to the biblical literalist right in our midst.

But anyway, you've shifted your position. Instead of A&E being immortal, they supposedly had "a means for living eternally." So now your position is that even if they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge, they still would have died, UNLESS they ate from the tree of life?

[Dorian Gray]

62. I'm not defending anybody....

I'm pointing out what the story plainly says. You can do with it or interpret what that means any way you like. I know most people who post in RT would say that it shows what a crock religion is, and I have no problem with that.

I just thought that the text of Genesis 1-3 was pretty clear. And I am attacking that as I would any other piece of literature.



ETA: Oh, and my position is the same as it always way. They were going to live forever in Paradise. I thought that was clear in the story. To you it isn't.

I guess I just assumed if they had enough time, they'd eat the damn piece of fruit.

[trotsky]

67. Your responses in this thread are supporting literalists.

You are defending the story as written, as if there were a real Adam, a real Eve, a real garden, real fruit, a real talking snake, the whole shebang.

Oh, and my position is the same as it always way. They were going to live forever in Paradise. I thought that was clear in the story. To you it isn't.

Nope, it isn't. Mainly because it doesn't say that.

I guess I just assumed if they had enough time, they'd eat the damn piece of fruit.

So your position is based on an assumption. Thank you for clearing that up.

[Dorian Gray]

84. You've repeated this about 6 times to me in this thread

That I am supporting literalists. And all I can say to that is that it really makes me feel like pounding my head against the wall right now.

(My last response to you addresses, to a certain extent, your other points about my assumptions re: Genesis. So i will not repeat them here.)

But, I have to give you kudos. You are the first person I've ever seen that seems so hellbent on proving that there was no intention that A&E were supposed to live eternally until they damned themselves by eating some fruit.

[cyborg_jim]

90. He's not hellbent on proving a damn thing.

You've missed the point - he's just trying to get you to regocnise that you're just making shit up to fit the story to say whatever it is that you decided it was you wanted it to say.

[Duke Newcombe]

110. Or, he could just stop jumping through hoops to cater to your gameplaying...

But then, what fun would that be?

Duke

[trotsky]

113. So you're a biblical literalist too, huh?

Getting to be quite a few on a liberal discussion board. That's too bad.

[Duke Newcombe]

114. No, just tiring of the gameplaying...

...that I believe is occurring in the back and forth that you are engaging in.

Then again I'm just some guy on the Interwebs. A figment, if you will.

Duke

[trotsky]

115. So you're tired of it, that's why you renewed the thread with your response.

Got it.

[Duke Newcombe]

117. In hopes of encouraging dialog instead of gameplaying, yes.

I'm sorry that you confuse my suggestions with "renewing" the thread.

I won't belabor my point further--do carry on.

Duke

[trotsky]

118. Then why didn't you actually, you know, CONTRIBUTE something

rather than just snipping at the "gameplaying"?

[Dorian Gray]

48. That's what made them immortal...

Eden was a paradise where they could live forever. Living forever depended upon access to the Tree of Life.

Once banished, no access.

[trotsky]

68. Genesis 1:27-28

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

This is before the fall in the story, of course.

If humans were to live forever from the beginning, then what sense does it make to tell them to "be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth"? The earth is finite. If no one dies, it will not only fill but overfill. An incredible, ever-expanding mass of immortal human beings.

Your belief that Adam & Eve would have remained immortal seems to lack both biblical support as well as common sense reasoning.

[Dorian Gray]

81. YOU WIN!

Though that is not how millions of people are taught the story in the Sunday School classes, or even lit. classes. That is not how Milton understands and retells the story in Paradise Lost. There is a whole slew of scholarship and art based upon the story in that they were to live eternally until they bit into the damned piece of fruit.

But, you don't see it at all in the story, and I can't force you to see what I see, so I will gladly step back and allow you to win this debate.

[cyborg_jim]

83. If a billion people jump off a cliff...

Well sir, that is obviously the prudent thing to do.

[Dorian Gray]

86. There's no way to respond to this....

You obviously agree with Trotsky's interpretation, otherwise you wouldn't bother to taunt me with something so ridiculous. And we'll all just have to agree to disagree right now.

[cyborg_jim]

91. I'm afraid my interpretation of the story completely yanks it from the context of Christ

You know, because the ancient people who came up with the Adam and Eve story didn't have a damn clue about that mythology to come.

The point here is that I am not "taunting" you with something "so ridiculous" - you are the one who complained that "millions of people" interpret the story in a particular way. Obviously you feel that this is a really big number that is really meaningful in some way.

Because any fool know that millions of people can't be wrong. Can they?

[trotsky]

87. I just wanted to understand why you were defending the simplistic, literal interpretation

even though you say you don't believe in it.

And at least, when given a chance to confront a rigid fundie literalist, to choose to engage them rather than join the attack AGAINST the atheist.

Weird stuff.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Satan is not in that story.

The Bible is clear that it was a serpent. After the apple was eaten God punished serpents too by taking off their legs and making them slither on their bellies.

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

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

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

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


Genesis 3:1/14-17

[Critters2]

28. The whole point is that mimesis is the root of all of our problems.

Eve felt mimetically toward the snake, Adam was mimetic toward Eve, and it all went to hell. It ain't all that difficult.

[Evoman]

89. My answer: The bible is a useless, piece of shit book that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Why people still read it is a mystery to me. Why people still read it and BELIEVE it blows my mind.

Adam didn't exist.

Eve didn't exist.

Snakes don't talk.

There was no garden of eden.

There is no tree of knowledge. Eating fruit may kill you, feed you, or make you sick. What it won't do is make you live forever, give you sudden knowledge, or give you magic powers.

The story makes no sense, morally or literally.

To anyone who actually thinks they have any use for the bible: Put the fucking book away and read something worthwhile. Meditating on something written by primitive, ignorant humans who thought lightning was god's anger, the stars were firm in the sky, and people were made of clay is not helping you. It is actively making you more ignorant. Quit wasting your time.

That is all.

[Popol Vuh]

93. I only disagree with one thing

"Eating fruit.........won't give you sudden knowledge"

Magic Mushrooms can..

:)

[Taverner]

92. The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the priest class lust for power

I saw it as a kid - and you can bet I was swatted by many a Baptist Teacher for saying so.

It means this: If you want to learn something and rise up from slavery to the church, the church will cast you out.

Cast me out, Scotty!

[jimmyfungus]

94. 2008: A SPACE ODYSSEY

Very few people get the story. It is not literal. What separates humans from animals, is that humans understand the difference between right and wrong. But early forms of humans were more like animals... For example, a gorilla swings around the jungle happily, and survives by instinct, and doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. So the gorilla swinging around the jungle happily neither has the responsibilities to do right and live just and "moral" lives as humans do, nor does the gorilla have the human problems of guilt, or shame, and does not feel emotional pain in the way humans do, or experience the other complexities that go along with being human. At some point in our past, humans graduated from being like the gorilla swinging around seemingly without a worry, to a human being who knows the difference between right and wrong, and has all the other problems that go along with that. This is what "the tree with the knowledge of what is a good and evil" is a metaphor for. Adam and Eve eat from the tree (not literally) and then they become no longer like the rest of the animals, but know the difference between right and wrong like God. Adam was not the first man, he was rather the first "man" or one of the first "men" who realized there was a difference between right and wrong, and the story is recorded in the way all early cultures recorded their history...using mythology.


__________________________________

spiritual food to chew on:
http://spiritual-political-self-help.blogspot.com/

[MeanMeanJellyBean]

95. Namaste Adam and Eve!

Adam and Eve were whoremonging Yogis with an appetite for health and vitality...

http://dencotton.nationalsportsreview.com/2008/04/21/yoga-666-intro-to-satan/

[cosmik debris]

96. Welcome to DU

And thank you for bringing your sense of humor.

[MeanMeanJellyBean]

97. muchas gracias

Thanks for the welcome... I guess I have to say something funny now.

[tpj317]

99. Wrong!

God said they would surely die. God never said they would die instantly. Adam and Eve did in fact die and that was a result of their disobedience.

[ecstatic]

100. from my recollection, they were simply told not to eat the fruit

No consequences were expressly stated. Of course, it's been many MANY years since I've attended Bible study. :shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

101. Nonsense.

If they hadn't eaten the fruit, they wouldn't (according to Christian theology) have died.

Since they did, they did.

It killed them.

There are plenty of good objections to the Bible and Christianity. Yours isn't one of them, and smacks of desperation and the desire to twist anything you find into a form you can disagree with, rather than with trying to read objectively.

[cosmik debris]

102. That bears repeating

"There are plenty of good objections to the Bible and Christianity. Yours isn't one of them, and smacks of desperation and the desire to twist anything you find into a form you can disagree with, rather than with trying to read objectively."

[porcelain_doll]

103. I guess it depends on your own point-of-view.

That just would not make any sense.
I think, (Even though I am Atheist)that Christians believe God is supposed to know all and everything that will "come to pass". So he must've known, yes? He must have known, and planned, for Eve to take a bite from the apple.
He must know everything that is supposed to happen, because he is "God". So I would not say he lied (If I were Christian...), rather it's how you look at it.
And that, in the Christian faith, it was meant to be that way, I guess.

[porcelain_doll]

104. And besides...

Nobody is immortal. We all die, eventually. It's the "appointment you cannot miss". If he had said she'd die right away...Maybe.

[Adarlene]

105. I've just finished reading Genesis of the Grail Kings

by Laurence Gardner
From this website Genesis of the Grail Kings

It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through trials and tribulations, floods and disaster when, from time to time, he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced as the One God by the Jewish and Christian faiths, there was originally a distinct difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in fact, quite separate deities. The god referred to as Jehovah was traditionally a storm god - a god of wrath and vengeance - whereas the god referred to as the Lord, was a god of fertility and wisdom.

I've also read and enjoyed Sitchin.

Ancient texts should not be ignored. The bible left out/twisted pretty much everything of importance regarding our ancient history. New documents are coming to light and more and more people are finding out the truth about religion and what "god" really is.

[uberllama42]

106. I have always read that Jehovah was a mountain god

Particularly in The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong. I don't recall ever seeing Jehovah and Elohim described as a storm god and a fertility god.

As Armstrong describes it, the two groups of Hebrews (the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judea) had opposite ideas about God, and their respective contributions to the Old Testament reflect that disparity. The Elohim version of God was incorporeal and transcendental, existing outside of time and space. He (originally they, since Elohim means "sons of El")did not directly intercede in human affairs.

Jehovah or Yahweh was the Judean contribution, a vengeful mountain god who fought battles on behalf of the Hebrews and physically interacted with them. Deuteronomy advises the Hebrews not to defecate in their camp because God literally walked within its bounds, guiding and protecting its inhabitants.

Those are the two versions of the ancient Jewish God as I have come to understand them. Whether Gardner is drawing from the same sources as Armstrong, I can't say.

[Meshuga]

107. The different sources

There is the documentary hypothesis that explains the different (biblical) God ideas (YHWH, Elohim, El Shadai] from the different sources. Richard Elliott Friedman has a couple of interesting books on the subject.

[Duke Newcombe]

109. Wouldn't these "lies" be mythical as well?

It being a "mythical book" and all. Why the concern over a book and figures you believe to be figments?

Duke

[Adarlene]

111. Because the bible is not completely

a lie.
It has been taken from much older sources and contains some truth (albeit stretched and twisted).
There was a flood
There was an "Adama"
There are "gods"

...just not how mainstream religion thinks of them. Adama is the name of the first hybrid humans.
...the annunaki allowed the protohumans to die in the flood (naturally caused -- they didn't cause it, just didn't warn most of the people)
...there were many annunaki. That is why "Jehova" seems be both an asshole and a saver.

[uberllama42]

112. There are plenty of people who don't believe the story literally

who still find meaning in it. The atheists on this board are reminded of that often.

I look at the bible as a collection of myths which were concocted to make a certain point. Almost everything in there meant something to somebody along the way. This thread is trying to decipher the meaning, if any, behind a detail in the story of the Fall.

[Lifetimedem]

116. They did die

Adam and Eve died spiritually at the moment they broke that covenant.


They also became subject to the curse of physical death which all their children to this day inherited.

[uberllama42]

119. What exactly does 'spiritual death' entail?

How is that different from just being kicked out of the Garden? How do we know that's not just a semantic cop-out to justify a contradiction in the bible?