A Plea for Understanding

[whag]

Where it implies sun, moon, stars are created 4th day I read it as non-literal symbolism to Genesis 2, sun = Tree of Life, moon = Tree of Knowledge, stars = Sons of God including Adam and cherubim to be his helpers (Genesis 2:18+). So they are direct creation by God, whereas the rest of Genesis 1 describes evolution of animals and other humans as described today.

Back to my question, do you accept that billions of years of predation, disease, and calamity antedated the special creation in Eden?

Where it implies Adam named the species, what do you read that as? Weren't most species already scattered about across the earth?

[JohnnyP]

God’s lie is very obvious. The point of the serpent is to explain the lie.

There's no lie, if someone told you that if you swallow poison that has no antidote, in that day you will die, the process of death has already started even if it takes days for it to kill you. You are as good as dead the day you swallow it. So you are reading it too literally.

The Serpent twisted the truth. If you say "The various curses serve to explain the realities of life" are you claiming that the Serpent lost his childhood innocence as well?

The fact that the tree of knowledge is the centrepiece of the garden is very significant.

A hot stove as the centerpiece in my kitchen isn't an invitation to lay your hand on it.

Adam has to eat it or there is no story but he eats it when he is ready to eat it.

He may not have even known he was eating it, he may have thought it was from the Tree of Life or another tree. Again the problem is he didn't check it out with God first.

If Adam had refused to eat from the tree of knowledge; if he had remained like an innocent child, he would still be there alone with God and Eve and we would not exist.

Speculation, we don't know what would happen. Anyway I believe other humans evolved in Genesis 1 so we may still exist, unless you can trace your lineage back to Adam.

Adam leaves the garden as a mortal god and God demonstrates his satisfaction by giving them garments.

Nah, he left a heavenly abode and God gave them mortal flesh so they could die, it wasn't a gift, it was part of the curse.

BTW, what I mean by ‘growing up’ is the awakening of sexuality in the young adults – that is the symbolic meaning of the serpent.

What do the Serpent's curses have to do with it symbolizing sexuality?

We see that Adam does not know Eve until he leaves the garden.

When they were given coats of flesh and mortal bodies they had sex as mortals do.

Another interesting detail is that while ‘good and evil’ is a traditional translation, it can mean ‘everything’ so there is not necessarily a moral concept attached to it.

Your premise that disobeying God was just part of growing up and is not a bad thing pretty much ignores the rest of the Bible that shows disobeying God is a bad thing.

From what I read, the age of the Torah is not known but only that the last major revisions to it were made after 539 BCE. As far as I can tell the concepts of ‘the fall’ and ‘original sin’ comes out of Christian theology and does not exist in the Jewish or Gnostic traditions.

Those concepts exist in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. From a Jewish source:

He was a serpent, an evil cunning creature, who came and whispered persuasive, sinful thoughts to Adam and Chava. Left to their own, it would never have occurred to them to partake of the Tree which Hashem had forbidden. -Rabbi Eliyahu Hoffmann

Back to my question, do you accept that billions of years of predation, disease, and calamity antedated the special creation in Eden? Where it implies Adam named the species, what do you read that as? Weren't most species already scattered about across the earth?

No Genesis 2 initiates around Day 4 of Genesis 1 in my view in a heavenly realm, before higher animal life existed on earth. The creatures made to be helpers to Adam in Genesis 2 are cherubim, not earthly animals evolved in Genesis 1. Not that cherubim of Ezekiel are the very same of Genesis, but note similarities of their natures:

Ezekiel 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle (OX), and to the fowl of the air (EAGLE), and to every beast of the field (LION); but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[whag]

JohnnyP, I still do not understand your teleology. when in your view did predation, disease, and calamity start?

[JohnnyP]

JohnnyP, I still do not understand your teleology. when in your view did predation, disease, and calamity start?

Some sources say first predation can be traced to over 500 million years ago, viruses since the first cells 3.4 billion years ago. I go with scientific findings in other words. Can you define calamity further?

So as for Genesis 1, my position that the Son was the non-omniscient creator, but he was given foreknowledge to see that his commands given on certain days would bring forth life as intended, even if the actual process took millions or billions of years to complete. And that each day of creation commands were given aren't consecutive, also perhaps millions or billions of years apart.

Further again, creations of Genesis 2 being in a heavenly realm not on earth don't need to coincide with or even have the same nature as life on earth. For example, fruits of the Garden may be some kind of spiritual substance or actual energy, rather than literal apples or figs.

[seer]

Yup, announced it on the Facebook group a while back.

Wow! That is great brother, good news indeed. Would you mind telling us what put you over the top?

[seer]

what? your premise that an immaterial soul relates to freedom of thought is a non sequitur. youre saying absent the immaterial soul, there is no freedom of thought. what are you talking about? moreover, what's the practical applicability of it? I gave you a concrete example of christian theist who has concluded her sister is possessed when she's actually just mentally ill.

If there is no ghost in the machine then all you are left with is machine. And I fail to see how your example applies at all. The fact is, in your "material" world there can be no freedom of thought, if you think otherwise please explain.

also, youre assuming too much about my naturalistic views. I'm between an agnostic/deist, which I find much more practical in dealing with the wreckage of evangelicalism (my mother in law being a small example). I have to reason with that.

Well it is good to have an open mind. So you think it is possible that men have a soul? A spiritual, non-material, aspect to their nature?

[firstfloor]

Nah, he left a heavenly abode and God gave them mortal flesh so they could die, it wasn't a gift, it was part of the curse.

Adam was never immortal –
“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
He was preventing from becoming immortal –
“Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever - ”

[shunyadragon]

Whag, I want to flesh out this idea of freedom of thought a bit more. You are an evolutionist correct? You don't believe in a God or an immaterial soul - right? How can free thought exist in your world view? Are we not then biologically determined in how we respond to stimuli and think or come to our conclusions? Where is the freedom in that?

Your assumptions of the nature of science, evolution, and biologically determined, do not fit the view of science at all. We are not mechanistic machines, the nature of the human brain just does not fit that concept. We did not drop out of the sky as ready made watches, computers or 747s. We evolved as complex intelligent problem solving omnivores.

[seer]

Your assumptions of the nature of science, evolution, and biologically determined, do not fit the view of science at all. We are not mechanistic machines, the nature of the human brain just does not fit that concept. We did not drop out of the sky as ready made watches, computers or 747s. We evolved as complex intelligent problem solving omnivores.

That is funny because Tassman, in another thread, posted a link to Stephen Hawking who says that science pretty much shows that free will is an illusion:

http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

Stephen Hawking on Free Will - The Grand Design

Scientific determinism: Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past.

Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well. Many, however, while accepting that scientific determinism governs physical processes, would make an exception for human behaviour because they believe we have free will.

Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behaviour automatic and within the realm of scientific law?

Although we feel that we can chose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws… It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.

[shunyadragon]

That is funny because Tassman, in another thread, posted a link to Stephen Hawking who says that science pretty much shows that free will is an illusion:

http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

Not funny at all, citing one scientist does not equal the conclusion of science. Besides Hawking is a theoretical physicist, he can of course express his opinion, but he is not remotely involved with the academics of the fields involved in this or the research involved. He is better off describing dark matter and energy.

What is funny, is you are willing to quote Hawking's opinion in a field that he has no academic qualifications, but avoid quoting him within his field of theoretical physics and cosmology concerning infinity and the cosmos. Mighty fine cherry picking to suit your arguments.

[seer]

Not funny at all, citing one scientist does not equal the conclusion of science. Besides Hawking is a theoretical physicist, he can of course express his opinion, but he is not remotely involved with the academics of the fields involved in this or the research involved. He is better off describing dark matter and energy.

Well you might want to take that up with Tass.

[shunyadragon]

Well you might want to take that up with Tass.

No problem, but you to need to take responsible for those you cite including Tassman.

[JohnnyP]

Adam was never immortal –
“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
He was preventing from becoming immortal –
“Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever - ”

He was immortal as long as allowed access to the Tree of Life.

That is funny because Tassman, in another thread, posted a link to Stephen Hawking who says that science pretty much shows that free will is an illusion:

http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

However the theory of "free won't" allows for free will:

“Free will is an illusion,” Harris writes. “Our wills are simply not of our own making.”

...

True enough. But if we define free will as the power to do otherwise, the choice to veto one impulse over another is free won't. Free won't is veto power over innumerable neural impulses tempting us to act in one way, such that our decision to act in another way is a real choice. -Scientific American

[seer]

No problem, but you to need to take responsible for those you cite including Tassman.

Well Shuny, you made a broad statement about science. I mean you do know that scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do not believe we have free will - correct?

[firstfloor]

He was immortal as long as allowed access to the Tree of Life.

Adam never shows the slightest interest in the tree of life. The tree of life is a very minor detail in the story and serves only to explain why men are mortal creatures. I hope you have a little more respect for your ancestor by now.