Why Eve sinned (WT 8/2013) (page 10)

EdenOne

Good point, prologos. I would say that God rested from his creative efforts after creating Adam and Eve.

Eden

Also, regarding how man came to be a religiously inclined being even before the creation of Adam and Eve, I would speculate that other spiritual creatures interacted with humans for a good while, before God and Jesus took a personal interest in the Homo Sapiens. This would help explain mythological accounts of half-gods and spirits in the material world.

Also, one can imagine that, if God was absent from earthly affairs for millions of years, his creative efforts could have been active lsewhere in the universe. Based on this, I wouldn't be surprised if there was life to be found somewhere else in the universe.

Eden

Finkelstein

How could Eden have sinned if she had no sin prior to eating the fruit, she was already perfect and sinless ?

Why didn't she run away frighten for coming across a snake that could talk ?

EdenOne

Finkelstein: How could Eden Eve have sinned if she had no sin prior to eating the fruit, she was already perfect and sinless ?

Fixed it for you. And yet, I don't understand the meaning of your question. Perhaps you can rephrase it?

Why didn't she run away frighten for coming across a snake that could talk ?

My take on that - since animals can't talk - is that she probably realized that it wasn't really the serpent that was talking with her, rather a spiritual being using the serpent. Why a serpent? Because it was an animal that could be on the tree and therefore draw her attention into the tree. We don't run away from a "talking puppet" as long as we see the puppeteer. We just get intrigued at how does he do it. My take is that Eve realized that there was a spiritual entity talking with her through the serpent.

I would extend the thought even more to say that, as she listened to the spiritual being behind the serpent, Eve must have come to the realization that there was more to the spiritual world than just Jehovah. God wasn't alone in the spiritual realm as she probably imagined until then. There were other beings there. And now she was being offered the possibility to step into that invisible realm as well. To be one of "them", a divinity. That's why she didn't resist the challenge, the draw was just too strong.

Eden

prologos

Eden one and two:

are You are writing a new creation account using the old elements, personae dreamed up thousands of years ago?

The old myth are messed up, they did not have a peer review the talking snake account sequel is getting now..

with all the objections, questions you are getting, are you going to clean up the model please.?

I personally think creation is TECHNICALLY more interesting,

the mythological part is fiction,

prevalent but is it relevant?

thank you.

EdenOne

prologos: If you account for the NEEDLESS suffering in nature/creation, and presuppose a loving God, he must have abrogated his duties and given creative powers to maligning spirit co-creators. Why would he do that?

Pain isn't needless. It's a much necessary mechanism of survival, actually. And the dynamics of predator/prey are an accepted part of the natural life. For the lion to survive, he must kill the gazelle. I can accept that without resorting to blame God for the "cruelty" in the natural world. If an atheist doesn't accept a God, who will he blame for nature's "cruelty"? He won't. He simply accepts that is the way things evolved. Why, then, in a theistic evolution scenario, blame God for being a "moral monster" because there is suffering in nature? I don't get that double standard, it's intellectually dishonest.

You pose an interesting question: Has God abrogated creative duties to malign spirits? Is that the reason for suffering in creation? Could a loving God produce a natural world where suffering does exist, not only among animals, but also among the most sophisticated animal of all, man?

That God abrogated creative duties to other spiritual being(s) can be seen in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:2, 3, 10; Colossians 1:16. What those duties consisted of, we don't know, but apparently they had to do with life on earth.

I think that , if life came about mainly by means of evolutionary processes, and those evolutionary processes aren't driven by emotions and affections, but rather, by fortunate random genetic accidents that happen to cause improvements in a species, causing it to become more sophisticated and more adapted to its environment, then one should not be suprised that 'nature' is cold and deprived of altruistic emotions, being mostly driven by need.

Eden

Finkelstein

Sure is difficult to apply a sense of rationalized logic in trying to critically analise ancient mythology.

If Eve had no knowledge of what sin was, how could she be blamed for what she did ?

What was the reason for that tree with fruit on it doing in the garden of Eden anyways ?

A loving and just god would have given her a second chance.

Keeping in mind she did not have any inherent sin in her when she ate the piece of fruit.

cofty

God personally "turned his attention" to this planet only a little more than 6.000 years ago when he made Adam and Eve - EdenOne

It is scientifically impossible that humans share a common ancestor just 6000 years ago.

The last common female ancestor, "mitochondrial Eve" lived approximately 150 000 years ago. Her male genetic counterpart, the Y-chromosome Adam, lived much later.

Why are you going to such bizzare efforts to salvage an ancient creation myth? It's anti-scientific and terrible theology.

KateWild

The last common female ancestor, "mitochondrial Eve" lived approximately 150 000 years ago. H er male genetic counterpart, the Y-chromosome Adam, lived much later.-cofty

Channel4 have something on about the female big foot Zana. They are testing DNA

Mark Evans travels to Russia and investigates one of the highest profile Bigfoot stories in the world: the tale of Zana, the so-called Wildwoman: a living Almasty said to have been found in the remote Caucasus in the 1870s.

I know its slightly off topic, but I thought you would like it cofty-she sounds like me KateWild-I am abit Wild in my cong LOL!

Kate xx

DATA-DOG

Isn't it just easier if:

1) We just accept that the WTBTS's dates, like always, are way off. ( How can Man only be 6,000 years old when there are ancient structures that required extreme skill to construct. We aren't just talking about random Homo tribes stacking some rocks. We are talking about elaborate structures aligned with the stars, and other feats of engineering.

2) Adam and Even and the literal talking snake-puppet WT teaching is also way off.

3) Sumerian accounts were written about something that happened in the distant past, and Genesis is a re-telling?

4) Many of the myths about Gods and Eternal realms are re-tellings of a distant event, but have have basis in an actual event.

It could be true that " Adam and Eve " were special compared to other life-forms. I still can't accept that Man has only been here 6,000 years. For that to be true all the geologists and Archaeologists would have to be wrong and all the scientists would have to be wrong, instead of 8 dudes from NewYork. Especially since the 8 dudes in NY have a proven record of lies, misquotes and deceptive practices, like revisionist history.

DD

Why Eve sinned (WT 8/2013)

Share this