God�s Word?

[Tassman]

Aside from be demonstrably false, this statement is nothing more than a red herring and a bare assertion. Whether the Bible is the 'word of God' or not is simply irrelevant as to the meaning of the ancient documents the Bible is made up of.

So, according to you, anyone can make whatever interpretation they like? Odd, that's not how people who possess the capacity for rational thought engage in textual exegesis. No, we prefer engaging in actual textual analysis, utilising evidence, and reason.

It depends where you are coming from. If the Creation Narratives are understood as the ancient fables they manifestly are, then yes they can. If one is attempting to harmonize the Creation Narratives with the much later Jesus story then probably not.

[JohnnyP]

If Adam is driven away from the Tree of Life and immortality, did you ever consider that those skins weren't a gift of animal skins, but a curse of taking on mortal human flesh so they could die?

On the contrary, if the Serpent represents sexuality, why would a priest say not to have sex (play with snakes) to a married couple? That doesn't make sense. Are you saying God called for celibacy?

I dare say that there are many other subtle complications in the story but that is my sense of the main thrust of the narrative.

Can you explain what the following curses to the Serpent have to do with it symbolizing sexuality?

Genesis 3:14 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 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You are assuming, without evidence, that the bible is the Word of God and therefore coherent throughout. It is demonstrably not. Therefore FF's interpretation of the Adam and Eve fable is perfectly legitimate.

The implication that God called for celibacy -- not playing with snakes -- is ridiculous, when FF also claimed the story would not go on without sex and children, and that's why God placed the Serpent in the first place, so they could have sex and continue the story. It's circular nonsense, making stuff up as you go along.

[Tassman]

The implication that God called for celibacy -- not playing with snakes -- is ridiculous, when FF also claimed the story would not go on without sex and children, and that's why God placed the Serpent in the first place, so they could have sex and continue the story. It's circular nonsense, making stuff up as you go along.

[firstfloor]

Can you explain what the following curses to the Serpent have to do with it symbolizing sexuality?

[JohnnyP]

If the Serpent represents sexuality, why would the curses be like what a priest says to the happy couple -- don't play with snakes meaning don't mess with sexuality? Is sex wrong for couples? Still makes no sense.

I suspect that the Tree of Knowledge served a real purpose, not with literal fruit, and not simply to tempt Adam. Some Jews believe it is Kabbalah. Another idea is that it was there for cherubim to have knowledge of the best ways to help Adam spiritually.

Whatever it is, asking why it was in the Garden if not intended for Adam is like asking why streets exist if they aren't meant for children to run out into traffic.

There's always the danger children may get hurt, but because we don't lock them in cages so they won't get hurt, doesn't mean we are tempting them. At any rate I don't believe they had minds of toddlers or infants, but rather were capable of adult reasoning. And, that the knowledge they gained from the tree was knowing what it was like to sin, where before God didn't sin, but being omniscient He knew what it would be like to sin. No mention of any special powers.

[Tassman]

If the Serpent represents sexuality, why would the curses be like what a priest says to the happy couple -- don't play with snakes meaning don't mess with sexuality? Is sex wrong for couples? Still makes no sense.

[firstfloor]

If the Serpent represents sexuality, why would the curses be like what a priest says to the happy couple -- don't play with snakes meaning don't mess with sexuality? Is sex wrong for couples? Still makes no sense.
Whatever it is, asking why it was in the Garden if not intended for Adam is like asking why streets exist if they aren't meant for children to run out into traffic.

[JohnnyP]

(so)

What I'm saying about FF's theory is that if #1-2 are true and God wanted Adam to have sex and start a family by way of the Serpent awakening sexuality, why would God in #3 tell the couple not to play with snakes which would avoid awakening that sexuality to have sex and start a family? It's contradictory and doesn't make sense. I still haven't seen what the following had to do with being a symbol of awakening sexuality, how does sexuality eat dust?

Genesis 3:14 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:

If the Serpent and/or other cherubim were created in Genesis 2:19-20 to help Adam spiritually and were allowed the Tree of Knowledge to do this, it somewhat mirrors how only the High Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies to make atonement to help the people. Anyone else entering it would die, as anyone else eating the Tree of Knowledge would die.

In fact Ezekiel alludes to the Serpent in the Garden of Eden performing something like Temple functions, being anointed as a High Priest is, and also being a covering cherub:

Exodus 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

Exodus 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Ezekiel 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

So of course, God may not have needed the Mercy Seat, or a High Priest to be a middleman, but that was the system regardless. And instead of the Serpent helping Adam have spiritual life, he helped Adam to die.

[37818]

There are a number of "facts" regarding the garden account. Prior to the garden detail, Adam and his woman were made good. (Genesis 1:26-31.) Prior to Adam's woman, God gave instructions. Can eat of all the trees except one. There is nothing that says it was a test for Adam. Adam was good, so what caused Adam to disobey? He stood there watching his woman be deceived. And failed to stop it. (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:6.) Why did this happen? And it not saying it is a test for Adam. Not anywhere. Except human interpreters, who are not inerrant in their reading and understanding the text.

". . . the devil, . . . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- John 8:44.

[Rational Gaze]

it would be more accurate to say Jews knew the legends and adopted the major tropes into a new story. this is the consensus view of scholars. few scholars think genesis preceded Sumerian stories, and few scholars believe the similarities arose independently. the oral tradition was too familiar.

False. It would be accurate to say that the Jews used the same literary genres, devices, structures, and so on... because they were a part of the same culture as those around them. Anything more than that is simply going beyond what the actual evidence suggests.

[Rational Gaze]

One's beliefs about the Bible does nothing to change the correct interpretation of the text.

It depends where you are coming from. If the Creation Narratives are understood as the ancient fables they manifestly are, then yes they can. If one is attempting to harmonize the Creation Narratives with the much later Jesus story then probably not.

False. The correct interpretation of the Bible is not mind dependant.

[Tassman]

One's beliefs about the Bible does nothing to change the correct interpretation of the text.

Who decides on the interpretation of the text?

False. The correct interpretation of the Bible is not mind dependant.

You are assuming that there is

[Rational Gaze]

Who decides on the interpretation of the text?

Nobody, since the correct interpretation of the Bible is not mind dependant. The correct interpretation is determined by the evidence.

You are assuming that there is

As do all textual critics.

The mere existence of numerous Christian denominations, mostly based upon differing interpretations of the Bible, is testament that this is not the case.

False. Truth isn't mind dependant.

[Tassman]

Nobody, since the correct interpretation of the Bible is not mind dependant. The correct interpretation is determined by the evidence.

Who makes the ruling when there is conflicting interpretation of "the evidence" among textual critics?

As do all textual critics.

And yet many disagree.

False. Truth isn't mind dependant.

correctt interpretation. So to which "truth" are you referring?

[NotSoHumblePie]

Isn't it the case that "interpretation" is inherently "mind-dependent"? Otherwise, it would just "be", and would require no interpretation.