sobarr@ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) (04/08/91)
Just a little question. On the TV today, and in several books, and in several discussions with several different religious groups, I here that Satans big lie to Eve was that "in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"(Gen 3:5) But I find that in verse 22 it says, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us (gods) to know good and evil..." Is it true that some religions teach that that was one of Satans lies told to Adam and Eve, or am I hard of hearing? Has anyone else heard, read or taught this, and if so why? en cristo un pecador steve flaco@ucsd.edu [My view of the situation is that the serpent told a half-truth. God originally said then if they eat the fruit, they will be doomed to die. There are two basic problems that have been brought up in previous discussions. One is that God said "in the day that you eat of it you shall die", and of course that didn't happen. Speiser's commentary on Gen. (Anchor Bible) says it should be translated "you will be doomed to death". The construct is an "infinitive absolute", which he says can take on a variety of shadings. It's typically translated "you will surely die," but Speiser says "you will be doomed to death" is another possible meaning. Since they didn't actually die, and the author of Gen. certainly didn't consider God to be a liar, he probably meant something like "doomed to death". The second problem is the one you mention, namely that they do in fact learn something, as the serpent promised. My view of this is that the serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. And second, the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It caused innocent sexual relations to turn into shameful ones. --clh]
ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (04/09/91)
....hold it a moment. I followed you all the way up until the last line. To me, God says Adam can have a life free from death (and mortal inperfections such as sickness, old age, etc.) or he can have knowledge of good and evil. Where does the scriptures mention sexual sin as the transgression of Adam and Eve in the garden? How could there be a sexual sin when Adam had been given Eve by the Lord (i.e. they were married) It is my opinion that yes, the knowledge gained by Adam and Eve did help them. Because of partaking of the fruit they would die, but a Redeemer had already been provided from before the foundation of the earth. The knowledge they gained of good and evil would allow them to later learn of the Gospel (through the ministering of angels) and then repent so that they could have eternal life with the Father. I'm glad there was a fall. THe fact that Jesus Christ was called to be a "sacrificial lamb" (an offering for sin) from before the foundation of the world tells us that the fall of Adam and Eve was not a "suprise" to God but rather part of his plan for the human race. Robert [I didn't mean to say that the first sin was sexual, but rather that derangement of relations between the sexes was a consequence of it. --clh]
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (04/09/91)
> Just a little question. On the TV today, and in several >books, and in several discussions with several different religious >groups, I here that Satans big lie to Eve was that "in the day ye >eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as >gods, knowing good and evil"(Gen 3:5) But I find that in verse 22 >it says, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of >us (gods) to know good and evil..." > Is it true that some religions teach that that was one of >Satans lies told to Adam and Eve, or am I hard of hearing? Has >anyone else heard, read or taught this, and if so why? > You've probably heard correctly, but as a lot of people seem to have short attention spans when reading the Bible what they told you isn't right. People teach with certainty things which are very uncertain. Its just a case of people not being comfortable with ambiguities, grey areas and uncertainties. The passage is full of those marvellous inconsistencies which makes being a person of faith so wonderful. I have yet to see a completely consistent interpretation of this passage and after studying the passage myself I am convinced I never will. >steve > >flaco@ucsd.edu > >[My view of the situation is that the serpent told a half-truth. God >originally said then if they eat the fruit, they will be doomed to >die. There are two basic problems that have been brought up in >previous discussions. One is that God said "in the day that you eat ^^^ see later comments >of it you shall die", and of course that didn't happen. Speiser's >commentary on Gen. (Anchor Bible) says it should be translated "you >will be doomed to death". >The construct is an "infinitive absolute", ^^^^^^^^^ I understand that you are not using the word construct in the normal sense that a Hebrew grammar would. >which he says can take on a variety of shadings. It's typically >translated "you will surely die," The infinitive absolute (as used in this passage) is generally to emphasise something. We might say something like ``you really will die'' where we are emphasising the fact that they would die, just in case they doubted the fact. The traditional rendering of ``you will surely die'' reflects the meaning resonably well. The ``doomed to death'' rendering that Speiser gives probably couldn't be justified in a translation of the passage but could be used a paraphrase such as the Living Bible or if there was a J.B. Phillips version of the Old Testament. It certainly captures some of the intent but the use of ``doomed'' would make me uneasy in using the phrase in a translation. >but Speiser says "you will be doomed >to death" is another possible meaning. Since they didn't actually >die, and the author of Gen. certainly didn't consider God to be a >liar, he probably meant something like "doomed to death". > Most English translations say something like ``... in the day that you eat of it you will surely die....'' but the Hebrew does not contain the definite article before day. That is normally added so that the closely literal rendering does not offend our English grammar. They way most English translations render the Hebrew gives the impression that they would die on *the* day that they ate of the tree, but there is no the before day. Actually, in my opinion, the rendering ``in the day'' misses the point of the Hebrew, it appears to me to be saying something close to the English use of ``when''. >The second problem is the one you mention, namely that they do in fact >learn something, as the serpent promised. My view of this is that the >serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they >would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would >not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to >them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. >And second, >the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It caused innocent sexual >relations to turn into shameful ones. There are three major interpretations of the Genesis 3 passage generally known at the Ethical, Intellectual and Sexual interpretations. That you claim that innocent sexual relations were changed by eating the fruit is in accord with the sexual interpretation. But very serious objections can be raised against it. As the poster quoted above, God says that they have become like one of us. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the Bible that God is a sexual being. There is no evidence either for or against the claim that Adam and Eve had normal marital sexual relations while in the garden. The text is silent on this point. Just another point on this passage, the chapter division of the text are of late Christian origin and some times do not accurately reflect the natural division of the text. In this passage you should read the last verse of Chapter 2, about them being naked and not ashamed, as the opening of this passage. Splitting it away into another chapter prevents people from reading the passage as intended. > >--clh] Bill Rea -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (04/10/91)
In article <Apr.9.04.02.14.1991.5905@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
Just another point on this passage, the chapter division of the text are
of late Christian origin and some times do not accurately reflect the
natural division of the text. In this passage you should read the last
verse of Chapter 2, about them being naked and not ashamed, as the opening
of this passage. Splitting it away into another chapter prevents people
from reading the passage as intended.
I agree that the split belongs where you place it, but the chapter
divisions in the OT are found the in the Masoretic text and are not of
Christian origin. The NT and Apocrypha chapter (and verse) divisions
date from after the Reformation.
This information comes from the introductory notes to the Revised
English Bible. If they're wrong, I'd appreciate hearing about it...
-mibst0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (04/10/91)
The lie that Satan told was "ye shall not surely die". But in a sense Adam and Eve did acquire a knowledge of good and evil from the experience. I cannot understand, however, why some people think the fall was necessary. Why is a case where the Son of God is forced to die superior to the case where man has not fallen and no redeemer is necessary? Nothing has convinced me that God ever intended us to know evil. I would have been happy with just knowing good. Perhaps we are as gods because we know good from evil, but a good part of many religions is trying to become a god when in fact you ought not to be trying to do that. The temptation to be like God was an offer of power, and only after yielding did Adam and Eve see the responsibility which comes along with it. Steve Timm
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.7.22.59.43.1991.29133@athos.rutgers.edu>, sobarr@ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) writes: > > Just a little question. On the TV today, and in several > books, and in several discussions with several different religious > groups, I here that Satans big lie to Eve was that "in the day ye > eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as > gods, knowing good and evil"(Gen 3:5) But I find that in verse 22 > it says, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of > us (gods) to know good and evil..." > . . . First there is creation week and man is commissioned to be "fruitful and multiply". "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multi- ply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." " -- Gen 1:28 (NKJ) Later they are warned about the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16) after being commissioned to be "fruitful and multiply". And then comes the fall of man in chapter 3. Clearly the fall of Adam was NOT some blessing that made it possible for there to be children. Genesis chapter 1 makes it clear that Adam and Eve were to have had children before they were told about the tree and its temptations and before they sinned. Now let us turn to Genesis 3:22 and look at the whole verse: "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"; "-- Gen 3:22 (NKJ) There are three ways, that come to mind, by which someone can find out about some new form of sin: 1) Sin can be learned by temptation and personal experience. 2) By observing someone else's sin, and yet not indulging in it yourself. You do not sin but you now know of the sin. 2) Theoretically, for example in our modern context of gene splicing and test tube fertility, there are new opportunities for sin that can be theoretically examined, and yet not personally indulged. God knows all about sin and yet He himself is sinless. Clearly Jesus knew a lot about sin and yet was sinless. He became like us in that He was tempted in all points just like we are, and yet without sin. In terms of knowing about sin, Adam and Eve came to know about sin from personal hands on experience with it. God knew about sin and yet was without sin. When Adam sinned, then both God and Adam knew about sin. Reading the last half of the text it becomes clear that the eating of the fruit itself was not what brought about death. They could have walked back and forth between each of the two trees, and continued to live for ever. As long as the tree of life was available to them, they were immortal. So, immortality was not inherent in them. It was a gift of God, provided through the tree. But they chose the other tree, which clearly was not a deadly instant poison. Satan told a half truth. He demonstrated that eat- ing the fruit was not instant drop dead death. He knew it instantly set them on a course for death. But deceit and half truths are his methods. It was the sinning that was the poison and not poisoned fruit that brought death. God could no longer allow them access to both trees. Since their immortality was not inherently theirs, the process of death set in as soon as they were barred from the tree of life. This tree is again made avail- able after Jesus 2nd Coming, but only to those who have chosen the tree of life, in the name of Jesus, and have rejected the tree of death that Satan has adorned with all the tinsel at his disposal. Verse 22 makes it quite clear that man has no immortality of his own. That Adam and Eve did not have it even before they sinned. It is God who offers this gift of eternal life, symbolic in the tree of life. Without this gift from Him, we are doomed to die a death from which we can never rise. Dave (David E. Buxton)
ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.10.04.21.36.1991.11072@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: > >I cannot understand, however, why some people think the fall was necessary. >Why is a case where the Son of God is forced to die superior to the case >where man has not fallen and no redeemer is necessary? Nothing has convinced >me that God ever intended us to know evil. I would have been happy with >just knowing good. > Because of the plan of salvation, we have the hope that one day we will see Jesus when he comes and we will be like him. You express that you would have been happy with just the good. You might consider this. God and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. They do have knowledge of good *and* knowledge of evil. Ponder the words of God in Genises. "The man has become as one of us, knowing good from evil" I myself can't comprehend what it would mean to know the good and be ignorant of what is evil. How could you make sure you were doing good when you didn't know the diffence between good and evil? Christ being perfect had a complete knowledge of good and evil. He understood all of Satan's tactics when he came to tempt him in the wilderness. Knowing good without knowing evil is like knowing what light looks like without knowing what dark is. It is impossible. Let it be clear that I don't equate knowledge of evil with being, thinking or acting evil! The Son of God was foreordained even before the foundation of the earth (before adam and eve) to come to earth to offer himself as a sacrifice for sin (see 1? Peter 1). This is/was the one and only plan of God; It was not a substitute plan latter added because somehow his original perfect plan was somehow scuttled by man. Robert
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.10.04.21.00.1991.11061@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > In article <Apr.9.04.02.14.1991.5905@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: > > Just another point on this passage, the chapter division of the text are > of late Christian origin and some times do not accurately reflect the > natural division of the text. In this passage you should read the last > verse of Chapter 2, about them being naked and not ashamed, as the opening > of this passage. Splitting it away into another chapter prevents people > from reading the passage as intended. Perhaps I should add that the 2:25 verse really serves as a connection between the two passages but if one is forced to choose to which it belongs it should go with chapter 3 rather than chapter 2. > > I agree that the split belongs where you place it, but the chapter > divisions in the OT are found the in the Masoretic text and are not of > Christian origin. The NT and Apocrypha chapter (and verse) divisions > date from after the Reformation. > > This information comes from the introductory notes to the Revised > English Bible. If they're wrong, I'd appreciate hearing about it... > > -mib The place I got my information from is ``The Torah - A Modern Commentary'' by W. Gunther Plaut, Bernard J. Bamberger and William W. Halo, Published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Rabbi Plaut served on the translation committee for the Jewish Publication Society of America's English translation of the 1960's. The book is er... like um... very large, but if you like I could try to give you a page number for that statement. A curious fact is that the Hebrew chapter and verse divisions do not always correspond to our English chapter and verse division. I do not know the reasons for this. Bill Rea -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [In the preface to Tanakh, the JPS translation you refer to, it says that the chapter divisions are medieval Christian, while the verse divisions are considerably older, and Jewish. I looked at the REB prefatory material and was unable to find the statement that mib refers to. None of my other reference books say anything about this. --clh]
slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.7.22.59.43.1991.29133@athos.rutgers.edu> sobarr@ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) writes: >Just a little question. On the TV today, and in several >books, and in several discussions with several different >religious groups, I here that Satans big lie to Eve was >that "in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be >opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" >(Gen3:5) But I find that in verse 22 it says, "And the >LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us >(gods) to know good and evil..." > >Is it true that some religions teach that that was one of >Satans lies told to Adam and Eve, or am I hard of hearing? >Has anyone else heard, read or taught this, and if so why? I hope you don't mind if I pick a fews nits. Satan hardly ever tells an outright lie at first. People are much more likely to accept a garbled version of the truth rather than a complete falsehood. In this case Satan told a truth: "ye shall be as gods, knowing good from evil," mixed with a lie: "Ye shall not surely die." The moderator responded (in part,) [My view of the situation is that the serpent told a [half-truth. God originally said then if they eat the [fruit, they will be doomed to die. There are two basic [problems that have been brought up in previous discussions. [One is that God said "in the day that you eat of it you [shall die", and of course that didn't happen. {... stuff deleted about different interpretations of the passage, which I have no problem with ... } I don't know if anyone has posted the point of view that I am about to express before so here's my $0.02 worth LDS scripture states that Abraham was given "to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God (Abraham 3:11). (See also Abraham 3.) Just to clarify a bit, Abraham was shone "all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest." (Abraham 3:9.) So in a sense it may have been a limited vision of all of God's works. The point of all this is that the Lord says the one day to him is one thousand years to us. (Abraham 3:4.) So in that sense, when Adam died after having lived 930 years on earth, it was still during the first day since the fall according to the Lord's reckoning. So Adam did die in the day that he partook of the fruit. As far as this applies to the creation of the earth, this reckoning of 1000 earth years = 1 day of the Lord's time did not necessarily begin until the fall of Adam. Who knows (but God) how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden after the Creation but before the fall? LDS teach that there were six creative periods, and that each period was called a day. But by which reckoning no one knows. Maybe if the account were being written in today's vernacular It might be called "Phase I, Phase II, ..., and the Lord rested for a time which could have been called Phase VII." :-) [First, the consequences did happen -- they died. And [second, the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It [caused innocent sexual relations to turn into shameful ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ones. --clh] I contend that Adam and Eve were innocent, like little children, and that thoughts of sexual relations do not enter the minds of little children. (BTW, I do NOT mean to imply the sexual relations are some how evil. IMHO, they are not.) If you were to ask Adam how he felt before the fall, he would truthful answer, "I don't know." Because he had no knowledge of sickness, pain, sorrow, etc. he could not know its opposite, namely health, happiness, etc.. 2 Nephi 2 is an excellent discourse on the Fall: 15 ... it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. 16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by one or the other. 22 And now, behold if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy. 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. (2 Nephi 2:15-16, 22-26.) 3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit-- 4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God. 5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated. (Alma 42:3-5.) 9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I an the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. 12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters. 13 And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them saying, Believe it not; and they believed it not; and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish. 16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, .... (Moses 5:9-13,16.) One of Satan's biggest weapons is simply to say: "Believe it not." Just look at alt.atheism for the most current version of this. I think what I have quoted, taken as a whole, sufficiently illustrates my point. Modern revelation sure can be helpful in clarifying these kinds of things. Without it, we are left to our own speculations. -- Jason Hunsaker slhw4@cc.usu.edu P.S. Sorry about the bandwidth. [I should have been more careful in my language. By innocent sexual relations, I meant relations between the sexes in general, not just "sex". --clh]