Adam and Eve and free will

by inbetween 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PSacramento

  Not sure what you mean...

  As I mentioend before, we are speculating and throwing out views and possibilities, none of us KNOW for sure what the writer of Genesis meant.

  Everyone's view is as valid as the others, I don't agree with NVL literal interpretation and He doesn't agree with mine, that's cool.

  His view is a valid one, sorry if I gave the impression otherwise, I just don't happen to subscribe to it, that's all.

  I don't view the bible as something to be take Literal in ALL parts, some yes, but in parts that seem to be obviously stories and such, no.

  I think I even agreed that, as a story, it kind of sucks, no?
• 

  palmtree67

  RE: Adam and Eve dying in the "day" they ate from the tree

  They did not die "in that very day", and we can't get around this by saying "But they died spiritually". Where does it say that or even hint at it?

  And we can't say that God was really talking about a day from HIS point of view, by using 2 Pet. 3:8 - "a day with the Lord is as a 1000 years...". If so, then why didn't scholars use Ezek. 4:5, 6 - "....thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah for forty days; I have appointed thee each day for a year." Or Numbers 14:34 - "....the days in which you searched for the land, even forty days, each day for a year you shall bear your iniquities for forty years."

  In 2 Pet. 3:8, Peter was discussing the second coming of Christ. Not the story of Adam and Eve.

  In Genesis, the Hebrew word for day is "youm" and it literally means "the time between the setting of the sun over the sea".
• 

  notverylikely

  I don't agree with NVL literal interpretation and He doesn't agree with mine, that's cool.

  Indeed it is. But hell, I don't believe the literal interpretation either, my man. I beleive that, for those that choose to believe the Bible, once you start moving away from a literal interpretation and start picking and choosing what's literal, what's symbolic and what's metaphorical, you can make it say anything.

  This one is an oldie, but a classic: http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/
• 

  PSacramento

  NVL, the bible itself warns NOT to be taken literally, Jeremiah warns that the scribe alter the scriptures, one of Jesus's woes is what the scribes have done to thr WRITTEN word of God.

  The bible warns to test everything we are taught.

  None of these equal - Take this as literal and question nothing.

  Interpretation is what we should do, it is what we have always done.

  How do we know what shoudl be literal and whatisn't?

  Sure in the ancient days it was easier - Global Flood? when did that happen? 100 years ago? Hey !!! Phils Dad was around then and he didn't die !!

  Hence "all the land" was understood to mean "all the local land" ( fas as the eye could see kind of thing).

  Nowadays, looking back 1000's of years it gets a bit tricky yes, but we can still do it, we just need to remember WHo wrote it, WHen and WHY.
• 

  notverylikely

  Interpretation is what we should do, it is what we have always done.

  Where does the bible say that? Warnings of falshoods and testing what you are taught != "Thou shalt interpret my word"

  Hence "all the land" was understood to mean "all the local land" ( fas as the eye could see kind of thing).

  I dunno. That's not in the bible... (although I agree with you about the flood).

  Nowadays, looking back 1000's of years it gets a bit tricky yes, but we can still do it, we just need to remember WHo wrote it, WHen and WHY.

  It was written, re-written, added to and taken away from as needed. So, who? Lots of people. When? I would have to ask which time. Why? Depends on who was doing the redacting and re-writing.
• 

  PSacramento

  NVL,

  Look at what the early Christians did, they took passages from the OT and applied them to Jesus as the Messiah, passages that were applicable to God were now applied to Jesus because THEY interpreted them in a new way, the way Jesus taught them too, the way the HS taught them too.

  Of course the literalists of their time were not that happy about it either.
• 

  notverylikely

  Look at what the early Christians did, they took passages from the OT and applied them to Jesus as the Messiah, passages that were applicable to God were now applied to Jesus because THEY interpreted them in a new way, the way Jesus taught them too, the way the HS taught them too.

  Depending the particular theology, they taught that Jesus WAS god literally haven taken human form. Or not. But some disagreed with that and taught against the trinity. My point is that their interpretation varied just like today. They were making up a whole new eschtatology, just like the Jews were thousands of years before them.

  Of course the literalists of their time were not that happy about it either.

  Or people that interpreted it differently, or used a different version that had different "facts" :)
• 

  sinis

  You are spending way too muct time on the Genesis account from the HEBREW perspective. That, in a way, is like whispering a secret to a group of 30 kids, who each in turn pass it on to the next person, and expect to hear the initial words from the last individual!!! Not going to happen. If you want to know about the Genesis account you need to go back further to the SUMERIAN account. Abraham took this account and molded it to his version. After all, he lived in the city of UR... a SUMERIAN city...

  http://www.halexandria.org/dward179.htm
• 

  notverylikely

  Well, I thought the sumerian link was interesting until I got to this line, "The Sumerian Epic of Creation and Genesis both have the interesting feature of being scientifically accurate in terms of what was created first"

  Creation != science
• 

  tec

  Okay, NVL... back from vacation, so I can respond a bit more now :)

  Huh? Jesus, Paul and God were always clear when they meant one or the other. (spiritual or physical life and death, NVL - just to refresh your memory ;))God maybe meant the Isrealites were the spiritually kill their enemies? Clearly not. Maybe they were supposed to metaphorically sprinkle the blood of sacrifices on the altar? Clearly not.

  Jesus and God may have been clear, but that doesn't mean that people understood them. Seems like an oxymoron, I know... but Jesus also said turn the other cheek - and how many people do that, or even understand enough to believe that's what he meant? If we're not listening 'in spirit' then how can we understand a spiritual matter?

  Sacrifices... I think there's a scripture that says God never asked for sacrifices, but I'm going cross-eyed looking for it. Give me a bit, and I'll find it. As for OT wars, etc... I don't know. I can speculate, but not with any real confidence yet. Perhaps some of what I say below will shed some light on what I think about that. But I believe that a lot of what man did regarding worship and holy war was what man 'thought' God wanted, and not so much what God actually wanted.

  Dear Tec, Jesus said the Pharisees and the behavior of the Jews was wrong, not that old scriptures were wrong. He never said that story was wrong. Conjecture and wishful thinking again, my dear. Jesus was very clear about what was wrong and he never mentioned that story.

  Dear NVL :), Jesus did say that the behavior was wrong, yes... and also that the understanding was wrong and that love and mercy were lacking. He also said that they had been given certain rules and allowances because their hearts were hard. Meaning, at least to me, that they could not have 'heard' anything better at the time.

  Example:

  "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

  Then Jesus then goes on to correct the allowance they had been given about divorce; in the same manner as I believe he corrected in the following instances:

  "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..." Matthew 5:38-39

  "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven..." Matthew 5:43-45

  Jesus was very clear when he spoke about what was wrong, you say, but not everything that Jesus said and did are written down. Should he have gone through every single thing... or just enough that we should be able to get the point? Consider that He also asked the jews why they could not make a 'right' decision, or judge for themselves what was right. I think we should be able to apply the things he said to assist in our understanding, even of things not written.

  As a side note, perhaps no one had a problem understanding the Adam/Eve story - so no one asked, 'hey, what's up with Adam and Eve not dying right away?'

  It's not hard to consider, it's just that there is zero evidence for it and saying that's what he meant is wishful thinking. He spoke of the days of Noah and the flood as a literal event as well, remember.

  It isn't wishful thinking, because I wasn't worried about this story to begin with. But listening to Christ's words -and applying them- just seemed to make this passage clear... to me.

  Tammy