What can we gather from Genesis?

[marco]

Can we extract anything good from the Genesis account of creation? God apparently told Adam, the first human: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." He didn't say why he had planted poisonous berries in a perfect orchard. Adam seems to have lived on, having escaped the dangerous garden.


We can extract beautiful meanings from the tales of Hans Andersen, such as the Little Mermaid who learns that pleasure comes at a great price. From the story of Orpheus and Eurydice in Greek mythology we can understand that a man can enter his dark psyche to find something precious, only to have it snatched away.


Can we learn anything useful from the Genesis creation story?

If we accept the existence of Neanderthal man do we simply throw Genesis in the bucket?

[JehovahsWitness]

DID GOD PUT POSIONOUS PLANTS IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

• There's nothing in the bible indicate there were any poisonous plants in Eden. It should also be noted that the garden itself was planted by God for Adam and eventually Eve to live in, so planting harmful vegetation might be considered akin to putting a Cactus in your babies nursery. It might be a way to teach them what to stay away from but it might also be considered an inappropriate context

#QUESTION: Could Adam and Eve have died from food poisoning?

• Even if there were poisonous plants in Eden, the only opening for death would have been disobedience of the Divine mandate to not eat from "The tree of the knowledge of good and bad". If Adam and Eve's perfect bodies did react to "non-edible" plants it would no doubt simply have been they had discomfort, or possibly some other reaction. They would not have died but possibly they would have remembered the experience enough to not repeat the mistake. Being sick (vomitting) in this regard is the body's way of ridding itself of unwanted substances or toxins and not necessarily a "bad" thing.
  
  NOTE : As a loving father, it seems reasonable to conclude if there were any plants in Eden, (planted for their beauty rather than nutritional value) God would have warned Adam of them. Further, He was probably confident Adam and Eve would have the shreds of COMMON SENSE he created them with. Learning what tastes good and doesn't would be an exciting adventure but most sensible people would procede by tasting a small portion first to see if what looks and smells good is safe to eat.

GENESIS 2:9 NWT

Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food

JW


RELATED POSTS

Did God plant poisonous plants in the garden of Eden? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1005027#p1005027

Does the bible say God created plants before the sun?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

Why did Jesus curse the fig tree?
viewtopic.php?p=1093184#p1093184

Does the fact that God granted Adam and Eve permission to eat from seed bearing plants mean that the bible teaches that poisonous plants do not exist?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p929283

Did God create deadly germs and diseased to threaten the lives of Adam and Eve?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p951119

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, THE ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD

[PinSeeker]

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
.........
2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


These two accounts are very different. My guess would be that the Genesis 1 version might be more recent than the other one. What do you think?

Why can't they both be the same, but just one (the first) being from 40,000 feet -- a part of the creation story of the world and everything in it -- and the other (the second) being a much more detailed account specifically of the creation of man and woman? Even if you don't buy it, it would seem you would admit that makes sense.

Grace and peace to you, Thomas.

[Athetotheist]

Here's part of the problem with the Genesis creation story, as I see it:

God creates everything, including Adam and Eve, and pronounces everything good. When Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and their eyes are opened, they see that they're naked and they're ashamed.

Here's where we run into a difficulty. If God made them naked and everything God made was good, then their nakedness would have been good. So why would they be ashamed? One apologist suggested to me that it was their disobedience they were ashamed of, but that doesn't explain why they would sew fig leaves together to cover their bodies. If their disobedience led to the realization that they were naked and they wanted to hide their disobedience, why announce that they knew they were naked by covering up? (Besides, the text specifically indicates that it was their nakedness they were adhamed of.) It doesn't make sense either way.

[Thomas123]

Reply to Athetotheist.

I have read more into this passage than simple nakedness. I think that it is shown as you say, that there is nothing wrong or sinful in the original primate state of not having clothes.
The primates have made a huge discovery in self awareness symbolized by the moral tree of good and evil. Yahweh asks them, who told them they were naked. The answer is that they themselves have become self aware.

We could speculate about what developmental breakthrough ,in human evolution, might correspond to this depicted Genesis event, In my mind it corresponds to mans early use of tools and possibly even fire. This is early man starting to 'enlarge' his perception of himself and of his capacity to both change and destroy his Yahweh paradise.
Man has found discernment but it has come with guilt and a consequential separation from his primeval home within Yahweh. This is symbolized beautifully by the self enforced exit from the garden.
Later in Genesis around the time of Cain and Abel, we see a more evolved man still grabbling with a choice between the Mezolithic and Neolithic pursuits of transhumance and land tillage. Abel is a keeper of flocks while Cain is a tiller of the soil. Yahweh approves of Abel but ultimately it is the trade of Cain that prevails. What a great story!

[Athetotheist]

Reply to Athetotheist.

I have read more into this passage than simple nakedness. I think that it is shown as you say, that there is nothing wrong or sinful in the original primate state of not having clothes.
The primates have made a huge discovery in self awareness symbolized by the moral tree of good and evil. Yahweh asks them, who told them they were naked. The answer is that they themselves have become self aware.

We could speculate about what developmental breakthrough ,in human evolution, might correspond to this depicted Genesis event, In my mind it corresponds to mans early use of tools and possibly even fire. This is early man starting to 'enlarge' his perception of himself and of his capacity to both change and destroy his Yahweh paradise.
Man has found discernment but it has come with guilt and a consequential separation from his primeval home within Yahweh. This is symbolized beautifully by the self enforced exit from the garden.
Later in Genesis around the time of Cain and Abel, we see a more evolved man still grabbling with a choice between the Mezolithic and Neolithic pursuits of transhumance and land tillage. Abel is a keeper of flocks while Cain is a tiller of the soil. Yahweh approves of Abel but ultimately it is the trade of Cain that prevails. What a great story!

If you accept the Genesis account as metaphor, how can you be so literal in your belief in Yahweh demanding absolute loyalty?

[PinSeeker]

Here's part of the problem with the Genesis creation story, as I see it:

God creates everything, including Adam and Eve, and pronounces everything good. When Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and their eyes are opened, they see that they're naked and they're ashamed. If God made them naked and everything God made was good, then their nakedness would have been good. So why would they be ashamed?

Excellent question.

One apologist suggested to me that it was their disobedience they were ashamed of...

I wouldn't agree with that at all. It's very shallow reasoning, if any kind of reasoning at all. I agree with you.

They were ashamed of themselves because they saw themselves as less than good; they no longer saw themselves as fearfully and wonderfully made by God, as David says in Psalm 51. And this was an indirect result of their being wise in their own eyes and wanting to "be like God" and not under His authority, which was their sin and triggered their disobedience. The shame they experienced was a direct result of not seeing themselves through God's eyes -- from His perspective as Creator -- rather than their own.

...but that doesn't explain why they would sew fig leaves together to cover their bodies. If their disobedience led to the realization that they were naked and they wanted to hide their disobedience, why announce that they knew they were naked by covering up? (Besides, the text specifically indicates that it was their nakedness they were adhamed of.) It doesn't make sense either way.

Okay, yeah, I agree, so forget all of that faulty reasoning. They made clothes for themselves in the same sense as lies breed lies. Invariably, people have to cover up lies with still more lies. There you go, right? Because they were wise in their own eyes originally, prompting their disobedience which eventually led them their shame, they came up with a "wise" solution to that ill-founded shame. Get it?

[Athetotheist]

Here's part of the problem with the Genesis creation story, as I see it:

God creates everything, including Adam and Eve, and pronounces everything good. When Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and their eyes are opened, they see that they're naked and they're ashamed. If God made them naked and everything God made was good, then their nakedness would have been good. So why would they be ashamed?

Excellent question.

One apologist suggested to me that it was their disobedience they were ashamed of...

I wouldn't agree with that at all. It's very shallow reasoning, if any kind of reasoning at all. I agree with you.

They were ashamed of themselves because they saw themselves as less than good; they no longer saw themselves as fearfully and wonderfully made by God, as David says in Psalm 51. And this was an indirect result of their being wise in their own eyes and wanting to "be like God" and not under His authority, which was their sin and triggered their disobedience. The shame they experienced was a direct result of not seeing themselves through God's eyes -- from His perspective as Creator -- rather than their own.

...but that doesn't explain why they would sew fig leaves together to cover their bodies. If their disobedience led to the realization that they were naked and they wanted to hide their disobedience, why announce that they knew they were naked by covering up? (Besides, the text specifically indicates that it was their nakedness they were adhamed of.) It doesn't make sense either way.

Okay, yeah, I agree, so forget all of that faulty reasoning. They made clothes for themselves in the same sense as lies breed lies. Invariably, people have to cover up lies with still more lies. There you go, right? Because they were wise in their own eyes originally, prompting their disobedience which eventually led them their shame, they came up with a "wise" solution to that ill-founded shame. Get it?

But the text says that they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so if their nakedness was good they wouldn't have had any reason to see themselves as less than good for their nakedness, which is still the reason the text says they hid themselves. Get it?

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 25 by Athetotheist]
Question
If you accept the Genesis account as metaphor, how can you be so literal in your belief in Yahweh demanding absolute loyalty?
Answer
I base my opinion on the metaphors themselves and the indicated responses of the Israelites as recorded, Lord, King, Father, are all ancient associations with exclusive power.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by Thomas Mc Donald]

How do you distinguish anything from metaphor? For example, resurrection seems to me to be the most likely metaphor candidate.

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 29 by Willum]
Lord, Father,King
These are metaphors for Yahweh, that evolved over long periods of human history.
Resurrection is an obvious metaphor in my book also, but that is not what we are talking about here, I think.