The Rise of Man

[DannyM]

Yes it was a great punishment.

You have to realise that in the beginning there was only 2 commands given to man. The first was a blessing (Genesis1:28), the second is a "prohibition"(Genesis 2:17) with the result if they do, and why did God do this?(Genesis 3:5) infoms us.The 1st command - the blessing- was for self, for them to act on. The 2nd was a command of denial. This denial was the denial of one self. Two opposing commands. Now let us look at the reality of it all - put it into perspective.
God asked only one thing in all the Universe for man not to do,yet they where disobediant. After this act, another 610 commands where given

Gods punishment was severe - the paradise lost- all of Gods provisions, all he provided was lost. Man would now die and God would no longer provide for them...

A great punishment? Severe? Yes, let's look at the "punishment" shall we... The "serpent" is told he will crawl on his belly well I'm horrified! A snake, crawling on its belly? But it gets worse... Eve is told the pains in childbirth will greatly increase. Oh no! Go to Genesis 4:1-2 and do we see any severe result of the natural pains of childbirth? But wait, it gets even worse... The man is told he will eat the food that he was told before the "fall" that he would eat. And he is told that he will surely return to the ground from whence he came. Oh my word, this is unbearable! The man will surely die! The man has become immortal! Now tell me, and I hope Csl is reading this, where would the need for Christ come in to play if man were in fact mortal? Where would "saviour" even feature in the Christan's vocabulary if we were all mortal? Now forgive my sarcasm, Topic, I know it's not attractive.

Now the severity of the act is significant in the Chrisitian faith as it lead to "Original sin". Now the Jewish faith as said by Joseph Telushken states " [But] Jews have never regarded it with the same seriousness (referance to Original sin). It was an ACT of DEFIANCE, to be sure, and because it transgressed Gods command, it was a sin. But the idea that every child is born for that sin is alien too Jewish thought"..

Yes, I too agree that this was original sin. But it wasn't defiance, it was curiosity. God prhibited something, so it immediately made this thing attractive. It is the prototype for disobedience, for sure. And that is precisely what the sin is: disobedience. Now as far as sin goes this is hardly right up there, wouldn't you agree?

Now i share this only because it shows that in Jewish thought they also regard it as fall of man into sin, for what is above purity of heart, soul and mind? The differance in theology is that the Jewish faith does not believe that we are born with original sin and for this reason when we are born we are born pure and only through personal sin do we then transgress to God. This is why they do not believe in Jesus as the Christ and believe that acts lead to redemption.
You have to understand that both faiths agree on the act of Adam and Eve, caused the deterioration of mans existance.
Then we have Cain and Able- the 3rd act of rebellion. The act of murder now clashes directly with Gods 1st command of "Go forth and mulitiply". So within just 2 commands set by God, these 2 commands are brocken. One by the parents and one by the next generation - the 1st child.This is very significant - the only 2 commands set by God are within 1 generation destroyed by man - they couldn't keep just 2 commands!These 2 acts of rebellion are insermountable!.

Disobedience is no reflection on the purity of the soul. If a small child disobeys his mother and *does* put his hand in the ice cream is this a reflection upon the purity of the child's soul? Not in Christian doctrine. We *are not* born in sin. You are frankly, if you don't mind me saying, misreading your own faith. Sin came in to the world through one man's transgression, we agree? And so sin had entered the world. And so we are all born into a world where sin exists. Therefore the *potential* for sin is always out there, just a hairs breath away at all times. We are not lowly worms; we are not born in sin. It is not the Christian position that we are all born sinners. We will no doubt sin in our lifetimes, but that is for us to do in a world where through one man sin entered it; it is not foisted on us at birth. This is where I literally throw my hands up in the air at the precise view you are taking.

The Significance of Cains murder is as great as that of his parents. The Hebrew for blood is actually a plural - (d'mei).When God says to Cain Genesis 4:10 "your brothers blood" it actually means "your brothers bloodS". The significance of this is that killers are mass murderers, as they are not only accountable for the one they killed but also for the unborn descendants. This is why God curses generations for one act. Such acts have a deeper meaning to God than just the act seen by man..

The text clearly says that Cain is cursed from the ground, which has opened her mouth to receive his brother's blood. Cain is explicitly punished from the ground and as a wanderer, a fugitive. I take your word on the plural, so can you tell me the punishments reaped on Cain'e immediate descendants by God?

The act of "eating from the tree of knowledge" did not raise man above his awarness, neither literally or metaphorically, it caused man to fall further away from his own communion with God directly.

Knowledge is not as great a value as communion with God directly. It does not mean you should be blind or with out knowledge but with the knowledge, God is the wisdom, and this is what man lost. Now we struggle daily to understand Gods wisdom, where if the fall had not happened we would always have it and be thankful for it daily.

The act of disobedience was necessary in order to know the worth of obedience. Ask yourself, why, when "the tree of life" was permitted from which to eat, did the humans completely ignore this tree? It is because *death* hadn't yet pricked the human cosciousness. So the tree of life had no meaning to humans who didn't yet know the meaning of death. It would have to take an awareness of death to appreciate the meaning of life. And thus it takes the awareness of disobedience and its pitfalls to appreciate the benefits of obedience. So how do you propose the humans could have been expected to obey a command when they had no real appreciation of the moral benefit of obedience?

God bless

[DannyM]

Topic,

Beware, I twisted my Mortals and Immortals around the wrong way. Doh! Apologies.

Dan

[topic]

quote="DannyM"] Now forgive my sarcasm, Topic, I know it's not attractive.[/quote]

I do not have a problem how anyone talks or writes as long as it is with respect, if it is done with this intent then there is no slure or insult. Saying that i have to admit that i have on occasion be told that i come across as abrassive so if this appears to you then it is not my intention at all.

let's look at the "punishment" shall we...

LETS ---

The "serpent" is told he will crawl on his belly well I'm horrified! A snake, crawling on its belly?

First do not insult by using a partial piece of scripture to get your point across, many a false claim is given through such acts. What you have done here is come in on "part of a conversation", walked off and then quoted this as the whole convesation - which is incorrect.

Genesis 3:14 tells you why he is cursed and what it means to be "crawling on your belly" Then the climactic of the conversation (or curse) is Genesis 3:15. This highlights the struggle between snake(satan) and Man. The inferance of the prophetic verse is fullfilled in Romans 16:20.So there is a great significance in this piece of scripture! With your comment you brush it off as irrelevent or inconsequential.

we see any severe result of the natural pains of childbirth?

Again you use partial convesation.As to Adam; his curse to toil the lands (Genesis 3:17 - 19) is from Gods original blessing that he should have domain over the world but in the garden he did not have to work for results now he has the pain of toiling. Now in Genesis 3:16 God is bringing childbearring to Eve with the same extent. Here God is showing that what comes natural to woman is now going to be a suffer equal to the hard work man has to do to live.
You cannot walk away from the fact that Eve is cursed by God. God shows that birth would give some pain but now through her disobediance her pain will be "greatly increased".

The man will surely die! The man has become immortal! Now tell me, and I hope Csl is reading this, where would the need for Christ come in to play if man were in fact mortal? Where would "saviour" even feature in the Christan's vocabulary if we were all mortal? Now forgive my sarcasm, Topic, I know it's not attractive

I know i am going to regret this lol but here goes. Actually if you want to be correct, man was not forbidden to eat from the tree of life (Genesis 3:22),it was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17).Your comment?question? has no relevance in this context.

My little speil.
How you are looking at the beggining, is not from what was but to what now is. You are showing no relevance nor understanding(?) on the impact of "having" and "now" got. To read the bible is more than on one level. Here your level is on a literal viewpoint (1 level) but not taking into account the rest of the record the bible tells us.The point of woman giving painful child birth you are taking that as how it is now but by what we read in the bible it was not like this before - there was a change, and a significant one, since the changes are refered to as a CURSE BY GOD.
Your view on the snake crawling gives no credance too what the text is actually stating. There is a saying " to read the bible you must read it on 7 levels", even when reading the Q'uran it is said by Muhammad Asad " to read the Q'uran you must read it on 7 levels".

But it wasn't defiance, it was curiosity

.

No it was curiosity that led to defiance. The curiosity is thinking what you should do, adding up the information.The defiance is the act when you have made the decision.

Now as far as sin goes this is hardly right up there, wouldn't you agree?

Well if you do not value living in perfection in all of its realm, walking with God in the evening, loss of connection and bringing pain and suffering to all existance, then yes it is "hardly right up there".

Disobedience is no reflection on the purity of the soul. If a small child disobeys his mother and *does* put his hand in the ice cream is this a reflection upon the purity of the child's soul? Not in Christian doctrine. We *are not* born in sin. You are frankly, if you don't mind me saying, misreading your own faith. Sin came in to the world through one man's transgression, we agree? And so sin had entered the world. And so we are all born into a world where sin exists. Therefore the *potential* for sin is always out there, just a hairs breath away at all times. We are not lowly worms; we are not born in sin. It is not the Christian position that we are all born sinners. We will no doubt sin in our lifetimes, but that is for us to do in a world where through one man sin entered it; it is not foisted on us at birth. This is where I literally throw my hands up in the air at the precise view you are taking.

You said "This is where I literally throw my hands up in the air at the precise view you are taking"
AND

We *are not* born in sin. You are frankly, if you don't mind me saying, misreading your own faith.

Maybe what you should do is put your hands in your pockets and read what i said and not what you think i said.I said and I quote " Jewish faith does not believe that we are born WITH original sin" I never said we where born "IN" sin. There is a marked differance between saying one was being born in and one being born with sin, or do you not see the diffearnce?

How does your child analogy relaite to Adam and Eve? when God said in Genesis 2:17 "for when you eat of it you will surley die" where is the releveance? How does the command of a human even compare to a command of God's? This is a strawman argument.

I may be way of the mark here but you have brought up this comment a few times and i believe this is the crux of your argument or i should say view point - argument is too strong a word and i apologize if i have used it incorrectly. You have said " We are not lowly worms ". This appears to frustrate if not anger you? With this i totally agree with you.

I too am often annoyed,frustrate on on occasion angry when Christians look upon themselves or as being so low. I understand why they say this Job is a significant referance Job 17:14,24:20,25:6 or Isaiah 41:14 and Psalm 22:6. But there is so much joy to be had also as a Christian. However to have this and the reflect on the "fall" is not a "fall" but a "rise" is not the way (in my view) to do this. It is what it is, but there is so much that has come out of it,even in the hard times God has not left us, that in itself says how precious we are to him.

so can you tell me the punishments reaped on Cain'e immediate descendants by God?

I actually alluded to it when i said "he is the 1st born". Do you understand the significance of being the 1st born? The best example i could give for you to see is Jacobs blessing he took from his older brother Esau by decieving Isaac his father, and then how Esau responded to the act Genesis 27:18 - 27:41. Take particular note of Esau response at Genesis 27:36.

So what of Cains loss and that of his descendants .When Cain was caste out, he left his father and was never given the blessing,he also lost through this his birth right.This was given to Seth for it is through Seths line that we find Noah.Since all life after the flood came through Noah's family - Abrahim came from this line so the Messiah comes through Seth from Adam. This should have been Cains blessing and his subsequent generations, but he lost it for his murder of his brother.If you look at the book of Luke and the Genealogy of Jesus Luke 3:23-38 and take particular note of Luke 3:38 it highlights the significance.

The act of disobedience was necessary in order to know the worth of obedience.

Adam and Eve knew the value of Obedience because they walked with God every evening and talked with thim. They knew the act of Obedience because they did what God wanted them too.

Ask yourself, why, when "the tree of life" was permitted from which to eat, did the humans completely ignore this tree? It is because *death* hadn't yet pricked the human cosciousness

No it was not death that pricked the human conciousness it was the snake that made them aware. Until the snake brought up the idea they followed God's command.The snake so no value in tempting them on something they already had permission to eat, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil held a great value to him.

So how do you propose the humans could have been expected to obey a command when they had no real appreciation of the moral benefit of obedience?

You have no evidence they did not understand the concept. Scripture on the other hand shows they did. When Eve is approached by the snake and says at Genesis 3:1, her reply is Genesis 3:2-3.Now take particular notice of Genesis 3:3. Eve says at the end "and you must not touch it ,or you will die". This is a clear indication that she knew what death was and the effect it would have if she did act. What the snake does in Genesis 3:4, is counter the truth by saying if she ate it she would be "like" God. In this piece it shows that Eve had a clear understanding what God is and the thought of being like him out weighed the punishment ,so she thought death was a lesser option than the greater of being like God.
You make Adam and Eve to be very or to the extreme - nieve, but they where not at all. They knew exactly what they where getting themselves into and took the choice that they thought would best suit them and not suit God.

[DannyM]

First do not insult by using a partial piece of scripture to get your point across, many a false claim is given through such acts. What you have done here is come in on "part of a conversation", walked off and then quoted this as the whole convesation - which is incorrect.?.

I have walked nowhere. I was sitting here the whole time. I don't understand your point.

Genesis 3:14 tells you why he is cursed and what it means to be "crawling on your belly" Then the climactic of the conversation (or curse) is Genesis 3:15. This highlights the struggle between snake(satan) and Man. The inferance of the prophetic verse is fullfilled in Romans 16:20.So there is a great significance in this piece of scripture! With your comment you brush it off as irrelevent or inconsequential.?.

Oh no! Do you really think the snake was satan? Romans 16:20 talks of satan but not a snake. Can you clarify? Tell me the "great significance" please? You are telling me there is great significance but are not telling me WHAT the great significance is. So, aside from reading your mind, how can I know what your version of "great significance" is?

Again you use partial convesation.As to Adam; his curse to toil the lands (Genesis 3:17 - 19) is from Gods original blessing that he should have domain over the world but in the garden he did not have to work for results now he has the pain of toiling. Now in Genesis 3:16 God is bringing childbearring to Eve with the same extent. Here God is showing that what comes natural to woman is now going to be a suffer equal to the hard work man has to do to live.
You cannot walk away from the fact that Eve is cursed by God. God shows that birth would give some pain but now through her disobediance her pain will be "greatly increased".?.

I am not using partial conversation for any sly reason, if this is what you are suggesting, I just do not have the time or the incling to copy the whole piece. I'm sure, with a board full of intelligent Christians, that people no what I am leaving out. So please refrain from suggesting I need to use tactics for my point to triumph.

Do you think it was intended that man was to stay in the garden and not work the land in the real wide world? Eve is not cursed by God - Eve is punished by God. Please explain this curse? And then please explain to me the effect, the "results" of this curse. By "show me" I mean in the text, not in your mind.

I know i am going to regret this lol but here goes. Actually if you want to be correct, man was not forbidden to eat from the tree of life (Genesis 3:22),it was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17).Your comment?question? has no relevance in this context.?.

I know man wasn't forbidden to eat from the tree of life. You have just resorted to playground debating - congratulations! I am asking you why did ha 'adam not eat from the tree of life? It is because ha 'adam had no awareness of death or its implications. Thus "life" had no meaning. And it is the same with obedience and understanding its benefits through the act of disobedience. Do you not see this simple correlation?

My little speil.
How you are looking at the beggining, is not from what was but to what now is. You are showing no relevance nor understanding(?) on the impact of "having" and "now" got. To read the bible is more than on one level. Here your level is on a literal viewpoint (1 level) but not taking into account the rest of the record the bible tells us.The point of woman giving painful child birth you are taking that as how it is now but by what we read in the bible it was not like this before - there was a change, and a significant one, since the changes are refered to as a CURSE BY GOD.
Your view on the snake crawling gives no credance too what the text is actually stating. There is a saying " to read the bible you must read it on 7 levels", even when reading the Q'uran it is said by Muhammad Asad " to read the Q'uran you must read it on 7 levels".?.

So I am again being accused of literalism? I am in fact reading beneath the text, beyond the black and white. I am giving a different opinion to yours, so I guess I must be misunderstanding something, eh? Tell me, how could there have been a "before" when there was previously NO childbirth?

So please tell me these seven levels you speak of? Are you just going to tease me, then leave me wanting more? I do not read the bible literally unless literal is all we really have as an option open to us. But it's fascinating to be accused of this again...

No it was curiosity that led to defiance. The curiosity is thinking what you should do, adding up the information.The defiance is the act when you have made the decision.?.

I agree with this, so I don't know where I disagreeed with it?

Well if you do not value living in perfection in all of its realm, walking with God in the evening, loss of connection and bringing pain and suffering to all existance, then yes it is "hardly right up there".?.

This is brilliant! Classic guilt trip tactics, esaggerating the point to be able to then knock it straight back down! A straw man, if you will. Brilliant. I haven't seen this done in some time

Maybe what you should do is put your hands in your pockets and read what i said and not what you think i said.I said and I quote " Jewish faith does not believe that we are born WITH original sin" I never said we where born "IN" sin. There is a marked differance between saying one was being born in and one being born with sin, or do you not see the diffearnce?.

Maybe I won't put my hands in my pockets because maybe I won't be told what to do. Hm? Born in sin I take to sinful from birth. Born WITH sin I would probably take to mean the same thing. So enlighten me...

How does your child analogy relaite to Adam and Eve? when God said in Genesis 2:17 "for when you eat of it you will surley die" where is the releveance? How does the command of a human even compare to a command of God's? This is a strawman argument..

It is an argument to show that disobedience doesn't necessaril make one's heart impure. And I suggest you look to your own straw man tendencies before throwing it my way. I also invite you to elaborate, then, om your original comment of disobedience resulting in an impurity of the heart...

Oh and by the way "You will surely die" is merely God pronouncing that man will become mortal. But you know this, right?

I may be way of the mark here but you have brought up this comment a few times and i believe this is the crux of your argument or i should say view point - argument is too strong a word and i apologize if i have used it incorrectly. You have said " We are not lowly worms ". This appears to frustrate if not anger you? With this i totally agree with you..

I am rarely angered, Topic. I, like you, enjoy robust and feisty debate. You have recognised yourself as abrasive - and you are but so am I and I cannot seem to lose my abrasiveness at times. I treat fiestiness with feistiness. The "lowly worms" comment is a nod in the direction of some Christians , mainly Catholic , who see themselves as such. Now, compared to God, I'll go along with the analogy (metaphor?), but as for our place in the world among other species, then no I won't accept this. I wasn't talking about anyone in particular.

I too am often annoyed,frustrate on on occasion angry when Christians look upon themselves or as being so low. I understand why they say this Job is a significant referance Job 17:14,24:20,25:6 or Isaiah 41:14 and Psalm 22:6. But there is so much joy to be had also as a Christian. However to have this and the reflect on the "fall" is not a "fall" but a "rise" is not the way (in my view) to do this. It is what it is, but there is so much that has come out of it,even in the hard times God has not left us, that in itself says how precious we are to him..

Okay, we agree the first part. But as I said before, the "rise" is simply a progression in knowledge, in the steps to human freedom and human free choice. It is not an ultimate "fall" of man. There is a transgression, for sure. But this is not a general "fall" for mankind. This is not how the story is meant to be seen. The story, for me, overwhelmingly tells us, ha 'adam and "us" the reader, that the antidote to the undoubted problems that wil;l come with our INEVITABLE freedom is "constraint." Constraint is the key to keeping our desires natural and in check. This is the MORAL of the story. There is no "fall of mankind" here. It is a transgression which leads to a mataphorical rise of man in so many respects. Man is now ready to face life and all its pitfalls; man is set free in the world and has to be aware of obedience and constraint. Man is not just set loose and told "be on your way" without knowledge of the benefite of constraint and moral judgement to accompany him on this journey which will no doubt be fraught with dangers that come with a world of freedom and free choice and the abuse of these things which will undoubtedly come when humans are faced with more free choice in which to corrupt the natural desires.

I actually alluded to it when i said "he is the 1st born". Do you understand the significance of being the 1st born? The best example i could give for you to see is Jacobs blessing he took from his older brother Esau by decieving Isaac his father, and then how Esau responded to the act Genesis 27:18 - 27:41. Take particular note of Esau response at Genesis 27:36..

I get it. I don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with the connection, but i get it.

So what of Cains loss and that of his descendants .When Cain was caste out, he left his father and was never given the blessing,he also lost through this his birth right.This was given to Seth for it is through Seths line that we find Noah.Since all life after the flood came through Noah's family - Abrahim came from this line so the Messiah comes through Seth from Adam. This should have been Cains blessing and his subsequent generations, but he lost it for his murder of his brother.If you look at the book of Luke and the Genealogy of Jesus Luke 3:23-38 and take particular note of Luke 3:38 it highlights the significance..

Quite right. He was a murderer. There is a whole other case to plead for Cain in the form of him not really knowing the immorality and wickedness of murder until after he actually murdered. But this has to be a whole other thread.

Adam and Eve knew the value of Obedience because they walked with God every evening and talked with thim. They knew the act of Obedience because they did what God wanted them too..

There is no indication anywhere until Genesis 3:8 that the humans had any real awareness of God's divine rule and power. They knew nothing of obedience as far as we can tell.

No it was not death that pricked the human conciousness it was the snake that made them aware. Until the snake brought up the idea they followed God's command.The snake so no value in tempting them on something they already had permission to eat, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil held a great value to him..

I said that death HADN'T pricked the human cosciousness which is why the tree of life was ignored. The "serpent" told a truth: it said that man's eyes would be opened and he would be as God, knowing good and evil. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was enticing precisely because it was forbidden fruit. It is the prototypical example of something becoming asttractive simply because it has been warned against.

You have no evidence they did not understand the concept. Scripture on the other hand shows they did. When Eve is approached by the snake and says at Genesis 3:1, her reply is Genesis 3:2-3.Now take particular notice of Genesis 3:3. Eve says at the end "and you must not touch it ,or you will die". This is a clear indication that she knew what death was and the effect it would have if she did act. What the snake does in Genesis 3:4, is counter the truth by saying if she ate it she would be "like" God. In this piece it shows that Eve had a clear understanding what God is and the thought of being like him out weighed the punishment ,so she thought death was a lesser option than the greater of being like God.
You make Adam and Eve to be very or to the extreme - nieve, but they where not at all. They knew exactly what they where getting themselves into and took the choice that they thought would best suit them and not suit God.[/quote]

No it is not! It is a clear indication that she knew how to speak and repeat the words of God. It DOES NOT suggest she KNEW what death meant. "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it..." Genesis 3:6 You left that bit out... This is why Eve took from the "tree." There is no evidence that she responded to the "serpent" telling her she would be like God or that she even KNEW what it meant to "be like God." She clearly ate from the tree for the reasons described in Genesis 3:6.

God bless

[topic]

DannyM, clearly we are at an impasse.
i have found your views interesting and thought provoking.
may God be with you and bless you

[DannyM]

DannyM, clearly we are at an impasse.
i have found your views interesting and thought provoking.
may God be with you and bless you

Oh, okay, Topic. I too have had one or two points made aware to me by yourself and to seriously ponder. So thank you.

God bless