By What Authority?

by Orthodox1 183 Replies latest jw friends

King Solomon

Yes, well, they both knew and intended to disobey God by eating of the tree he told them not to eat from. So... free will.
Surely you've dealt with children and infants (which also are considered not possessing developed morality and decision-making skills)? That's exactly WHY children are not held to the same legal standard as adults: we KNOW they don't consider the consequences of their actions.
God created them as lacking in Wisdom.
How do we know? The fruit had to be tempting to eat, and the account says Eve saw that it was "desirable to give them wisdom"! Heck, that was in THE NAME OF THE TREE, a name given by God!!
Genesis 3:6 tells us EXACTLY why Eve wanted to eat the fruit: it looked good to eat (nutritious and delicious), it was pleasing to the eye, AND it looked desirable to impair WISDOM.
Genesis 3:6:
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Tams said:
"Eat... and die."
Not...
"Eat... and i will kill you."
Death was a consequence.
I don't suppose you work for the Mafia, do you?
Because they use a similar approach: "it would be very good for you if you do as we say, so as to avoid bad things happening to you and yourz family. That's a nice-looking daughter you've got there: it would be a SHAME if she had an accident...."
Sorry, Tams, but God had the power to kick them out of the Garden, station those cherubs on the tree of life, and position that fiery spinning sword to make sure "accidents" DID happen. He CURSED them: that's a pretty damning statement of His Divine Judgment. Don't weaken the threat element in an attempt to make it more palatable to you: you're tampering with God's message, if you do. It's original and current meaning is undeniable, and you are not empowered to re-write God's words.
(And the story raises the disturbing question of why He didn't use the sword-yielding cherubs to guard the Wisdom Fruit BEFORE they ate from it? It clearly WAS an option....
I know: it didn't fit the role of allegorical story that needed to offer an explanation of why Hebrews needed to follow Torahic Laws to the tee, which was the REAL reason of the Adam and Eve story. It's like when you go to traffic school: you know the class will begin with gruesome pictures of what happens when people speed: same idea.... Get their attention at the start, like the Bible does with Adam and Eve.)
So they had free will. We are in agreement upon this point.
Yeah, the size of man's free-will domain is completely up to God: He decides which actions He will allow man to exercise free will over. Man doesn't.
You are saying that they did not have the wisdom to use their free will wisely?
That's EXACTLY what the story implies.
Mankind has kinda shown what sort of track record he has of using that wisdom to show love for one another... over serving one's self. So eating from that tree didn't exactly teach them how to use their free will responsibly, so this theory makes no sense to me.
Remember they were hoodwinked into it by the CLEVER (Hebrew word arum: translated as clever, prudent, even wise, in various other occurances or the word in the OT).
"Clever" serpent vs "foolish" Eve: does that sound like a fair match, and one where the entire human family is made to suffer?
NewChapter

Because they use a similar approach: "it would be very good for you if you do as we say, so as to avoid bad things happening to you and yourz family. That's a nice-looking daughter you've got there: it would be a SHAME if she had an accident...."
LOL!
JW's do that too. They say it is not THEIR decision to shun their children, but their children's decision to disobey and leave Jehovah. It's a common tactic.
King Solomon

NC said:

So I guess they could have freewill as long as it was practiced within strict boundaries. Like deciding if they should slice the fruit today, or eat it whole. Free will. Skip through the flowers, or run. Free will. Tell a joke about a grasshopper or not. Free will.
Yup.... All are examples of uses of FW just as today JWs use FW to decide which tie to wear, which food to eat....
Now, if God had said, "Thou Shalt Not Skip Thru My Flowerbeds" then THAT choice would no longer be in A&E's FW domain, but instantly be considered as a sin, a violation of God's DW (Divine Will).
The catch is, JWs have to be VERY CAREFUL to NOT violate DW accidently, say by eating a sandwich which contains blood (nevermind the Mosaic Law doesn't apply to them: they think it does). Again, God does NOT allow accidental (or unintentional) sin; he STILL will demand an accounting.
And if they used their free will to devise some kind of writing system, just what would they write about? All good plots must have some conflict. But what if you lived in a conflict free zone, and the very knowledge of conflict was bound up in a tree that well, you are free to eat from, but then all hell would break loose?
Genesis indicated they were created as children, as fools, so it was only a matter of time, waiting for an accident to happen.
In modern-day terms, God didn't "child-proof" the Garden of Eden, i.e. He left the poisonous cleaners in the kitchen cabinet unlocked (worse: he mixed the rat poison into milk formula, stored in their infant bottles!), left the electrical sockets uncovered, the boiling pots of water on the stove unattended with the handles where they could reach them, etc.
If YHWH were a parent, Child Protective Services would be placing Adam and Eve into foster homes as soon as the situation was assessed.
But like I said above, it's a story intended to present a lesson of the importance of following God's message (i.e. Torah laws and rules) to a tee: as you call see from Adam and Eve, bad things happen if you don't follow God's orders to a tee. Oh, it's also interwoven with a creation myth, explaining how man came to be on the Earth, animals, stars, Sun, etc. It's actually a crafty myth that was interwoven with others, to serve it's purpose: the priestly classes attempt to control their position and role in Hebrew society.
Prognoser

Tec, your last post to me...where was our disagreement?
tec

I don't know, Prognoser... I thought you were agreeing that God backed the Catholic church despite all the things it did against the teachings of His Son? I can't remember now.
How do we know? The fruit had to be tempting to eat, and the account says Eve saw that it was "desirable to give them wisdom"! Heck, that was in THE NAME OF THE TREE, a name given by God!!
Yes, but there are all sorts of wisdoms, Sol. In this case... wisdom in the knowledge of good and evil, as the tree depicts.
I don't suppose you work for the Mafia, do you?
Because they use a similar approach: "it would be very good for you if you do as we say, so as to avoid bad things happening to you and yourz family. That's a nice-looking daughter you've got there: it would be a SHAME if she had an accident...."
That is all fine and dandy, but that is not what happened here.
Sorry, Tams, but God had the power to kick them out of the Garden, station those cherubs on the tree of life, and position that fiery spinning sword to make sure "accidents" DID happen. He CURSED them: that's a pretty damning statement of His Divine Judgment. Don't weaken the threat element in an attempt to make it more palatable to you: you're tampering with God's message, if you do. It's original and current meaning is undeniable, and you are not empowered to re-write God's words.
Neither are you. And there is NOTHING in that account that states God killed them for what they did. Simply states "eat, and you will die".
Did they have to leave? Yes. They had brought death into themselves... though God trapped the death in the vessels, so that the spirit could be protected. This was done for us all, the offspring of Adam and Eve... so that we (and they) might yet live. Not just of the flesh, but of the spirit as well.
(And the story raises the disturbing question of why He didn't use the sword-yielding cherubs to guard the Wisdom Fruit BEFORE they ate from it? It clearly WAS an option....
Perhaps because he was trusting Adam/Eve to answer for themselves... and choose well? You don't show mistrust to start out with... people earn that, unfortunately. It would be wrong to think the worst of someone, imo, when they have done nothing to earn your mistrust. But after they ate, they proved that they could not be trusted.
I know: it didn't fit the role of allegorical story that needed to offer an explanation of why Hebrews needed to follow Torahic Laws to the tee, which was the REAL reason of the Adam and Eve story. It's like when you go to traffic school: you know the class will begin with gruesome pictures of what happens when people speed: same idea.... Get their attention at the start, like the Bible does with Adam and Eve.)
It is 'a' reason. Does not make it 'the' reason.
Yeah, the size of man's free-will domain is completely up to God: He decides which actions He will allow man to exercise free will over. Man doesn't.
Then it is not free will at all.

Remember they were hoodwinked into it by the CLEVER (Hebrew word arum: translated as clever, prudent, even wise, in various other occurances or the word in the OT).
"Clever" serpent vs "foolish" Eve: does that sound like a fair match, and one where the entire human family is made to suffer?
And our excuse is...?
Peace,
tammy
King Solomon

TEC said:
Mankind has kinda shown what sort of track record he has of using that wisdom to show love for one another... over serving one's self. So eating from that tree didn't exactly teach them how to use their free will responsibly, so this theory makes no sense to me.
It doesn't matter that you think it's "my theory": it's what the story SAYS. You SHOULD ask, why haven't you understood it in those terms before? Perhaps the pastors, etc, have an ulterior motive to NOT analyze the story to ask what is really being depicted, as they cannot handle to plain reading of the Genesis account? Why have YOUR eyes not been opened to what it SAYS, in plain English (OK, it was written in ancient Hebrew)?
YHWH is recorded as admitting that A&E had "become like Gods" in Gene 3:22, indicating that they had gained wisdom on par with His; the fruit "worked" and had an effect on their decision-making processes and their psyche. And being that God pretty quickly managed to screw up His own creation by introducing mortality into his creations, it's hard to imagine how man can do any WORSE?
Surely you're not suggesting that ALL men are evil, are you? You don't think YOU'RE evil, right? We pass 1000's of strangers daily, and most are not bad or evil people. Fact is, most people manage to make moral decisions in their lives, including those who've never read the Bible or even heard of it (and even those who DO read the Bible religiously are able to overcome that handicap by not engaging in evil acts like owning slaves, committing genocide, rape, etc, even though their moral guidebook indicates these are OK).
tec

It doesn't matter that you think it's "my theory": it's what the story SAYS. You SHOULD ask, why haven't you understood it in those terms before? Perhaps the pastors, etc, have an ulterior motive to NOT analyze the story to ask what is really being depicted, as they cannot handle to plain reading of the Genesis account? Why have YOUR eyes not been opened to what it SAYS, in plain English (OK, it was written in ancient Hebrew)?
Eyes opened by... whom?

YHWH is recorded as admitting that A&E had "become like Gods" in Gene 3:22, indicating that they had gained wisdom on par with His; the fruit "worked" and had an effect on their decision-making processes and their psyche. And being that God pretty quickly managed to screw up His own creation by introducing mortality into his creations, it's hard to imagine how man can do any WORSE?
Well, like God in knowing good and evil... but not exactly like God.. right? Because they could not know bad (and hence, death) and not die.
And yeah, there are much worse things than mortality (of the flesh). There is torture; pain; sorrow; hopelessness. There is death of the spirit as well...which you can take literally and metaphorically (such as simply being dead inside). If there was nothing worse than mortality, then fewer people would commit suicide.
Literal death of the spirit though... which is eternal, while death of the flesh is not eternal... God protected us from that, and gave us the gift of Life (found in his Son... sort of like no longer barring the way to the tree of life, you know? Life = Christ)

Surely you're not suggesting that ALL men are evil, are you?
I don't think there was anything in my words to suggest this one way or the other.
I do, however, think that 'evil' can be quite subjective/relative to us. To God, evil might well be turning a blind eye to anyone in need, no matter how great or small that need. Even passing by the homeless guy on the street and doing nothing for him if he asks for help (perhaps even if he does not ask for help)
We are very limited in our ability to love. Lack of love is what causes people to turn a blind eye, or to cross the street, or to just not help. Sometimes fear... but I think fear might be a symptom sometimes, of lack of love for others.
You don't think YOU'RE evil, right?
Well, i'm not good. I don't tend to think in those terms though. I do tend to measure something I do or don't do... against love; the love Christ showed for us; the love I would hope someone would show me in their position. Sometimes i manage, sometimes i don't. I'm guessing it is similar for most people.
Fact is, most people manage to make moral decisions in their lives, including those who've never read the Bible or even heard of it (and even those who DO read the Bible religiously are able to overcome that handicap by not engaging in evil acts like owning slaves, committing genocide, rape, etc, even though their moral guidebook indicates these are OK).
I've never stated otherwise.
You can't find love in a book, or in rules. Love is within you... or not.
If it is not written on your heart and conscience... then you look to someone else to show/teach you... or you look to rules and guidelines, and perhaps also religions.
Peace,
tammy
Prognoser

Tec said:
I don't know, Prognoser... I thought you were agreeing that God backed the Catholic church despite all the things it did against the teachings of His Son? I can't remember now.
I definitely agree with that. ;)
King Solomon

Yes, but there are all sorts of wisdoms, Sol. In this case... wisdom in the knowledge of good and evil, as the tree depicts.
Sorry, Tams, but you cannot reinvent and re-interpret ancient Hebrew words to fit your own agenda: that would be a SIN, as if you were in fact, a lying interpreter of scribes.
There is only one interpretation of le-has-kil as used in the OT: "to make one wise". It's the same root as used to describe King Solomon's childhood request in a dream, when he asked YHWH to grant him wisdom (See, Solomon ASKED YHWH to be granted wisdom; he didn't TAKE it, like Adam and Eve did. That's an important element of the Solomon story that aids insight into past interpretation of the A&E account).
http://skipmoen.com/2009/06/09/wisdom-of-the-world/
I am curious: what other types of wisdom can you possibly imagine there being, aside from the ability to exercise good judgment and sound discretion, to determine proper and prudent choices, determining right courses of action from wrong? That's the biblical usage of the word, 'wisdom'. Did you have something else in mind, or were you just tap-dancing?
The account says straight-up that the forbidden fruit was desirous to Eve for granting wisdom, so there's no question arguing about what you think tree of knowledge of good and evil means: it tells us it grants WISDOM.
TAM said:
And there is NOTHING in that account that states God killed them for what they did. Simply states "eat, and you will die".
TAM, you really OUGHT to try reading the account: that's just utterly and completely WRONG.
Here ya' go Gene 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”
Starts with "because you ate" and ends with "to dust you shall return". That's God's curse to Adam and Eve, which is restated in the NT as "the wages of Sin are death". Certainly you accept that basic theological concept of the story of the Bible, if you claim to be a Xian? That's the whole basis of Christ's redemption of the original sin?
Did they have to leave? Yes. They had brought death into themselves... though God trapped the death in the vessels, so that the spirit could be protected. This was done for us all, the offspring of Adam and Eve... so that we (and they) might yet live. Not just of the flesh, but of the spirit as well.
You've launched into "Tammy's Tall Tales" again: for one, the words 'spirit' and 'vessel' are not mentioned in the A&E account, so you're on your own again, making up your own story. Careful, there: you're back into lying scribe territory, making up your own version of the account to suit your wishes. Your Jesus warned about that kind of thing, you know....
Perhaps because he was trusting Adam/Eve to answer for themselves... and choose well? You don't show mistrust to start out with... people earn that, unfortunately. It would be wrong to think the worst of someone, imo, when they have done nothing to earn your mistrust. But after they ate, they proved that they could not be trusted.
Uh, Ya THINK? OF COURSE they weren't "trustworthy", because God created them AS FOOLISH, AS FOOLS! He, of anyone, should KNOW they possessed immature decision-making capabilities: He made them that way!
That's like saying it may not be a good idea to allow 4 yr olds to baby-sit themselves, because they are not trustworthy. No spit, Sparlock: that's exactly RIGHT!! They aren't!!
But who do you blame for creating the situation: the kids, or the adults/parents who should've known better? In our society, we blame the so-called adults.
It is 'a' reason. Does not make it 'the' reason.
Never said it was the ONLY reason: if I did, it was a mistake. The morality tale of A&E is blended into an origins/creations myths, and whether the morality angle was intentional or not, it IS an engaging tale; it wouldn't have lasted as long, and used as the basis of innumerable stories and works of literature over the centuries.
HOWEVER, as I've pointed out before, it is NOT unique: a quick reading of the Greek Theogony reveals the story of Prometheus, an older tale which features many of the same plot devices/elements, eg stealing of fire (knowledge) from the Gods for the benefit of humanity, the subsequent punishment by Zeus in the form of a Sisypean task (akin to Adam's tilling the cursed fields), and Pandora's bringing evil to humanity by opening Pandora's Box (like Eve's eating of the fruit). Pandora released evils from the box, and the only thing remaining was hope; Xians took the Eve account, and turned the story into a prophecy in Gen 3:15 indicating the hope of redemption via Christ. The Theogony story was certainly already quite old by the time the NT was written by Paul et al....
Yeah, the size of man's free-will domain is completely up to God: He decides which actions He will allow man to exercise free will over. Man doesn't.
Then it is not free will at all.
Well, you're right: it's not 'free will' in the way philosophers use the term, and hence why I made the distinction to ask, a few posts back. I don't write the theology, I'm just trying to explain what is often a misunderstood concept (free will), even by most JWs. It's a PERFECT example of a case where if it seems hard to understand, it's a sign of a basic misunderstanding, based on someone who intentionally obsfucates the concept for their own purposes: it's not THAT hard to grasp....
FWIW, there's also implications for free-will in claims of God's omniscience (including knowing the future, AKA pre-destiny), but that's OT for the discussion of the authority issue raised in this thread.
tec

Agree with what I thought you were saying; agree with not knowing; or agree with not remembering?
Good Lord, Prognoser, i can never tell if you are putting me on or not, lol.
Peace,
tammy

By What Authority?

Share this