Moderator: Moderators
I said nothing about an "apple". Also, you blew off the entire point I was making. You are obsessing over the English translation. "Good" and "evil", and "bad" for that matter, are best guess stand ins for the terms "tov" and "ra". One of the primary purposes of the first three chapters is to define these terms and establish there relationship with one another. Arguing over whether the phrase "of the tree" refers to the knowledge itself or the fruit of that knowledge ignores the historical context in favor of obsessing over the analogy.JP Cusick wrote:What you say here is wrong but I still appreciate it because I had to go look up the story to see what was right.bluethread wrote: Adonai does not say the knowledge in general is harmful. It is the fruit of the knowledge of ... that is harmful,
It is "the knowledge" and not the fruit.
It was Eve who said it inaccurately as "the fruit" here in Genesis 3:3
But God said that is was "the knowledge" see Genesis 2:17
Then at last God drove out the people because they had the poisoned knowledge (not the fruit but the knowledge of good and bad) per Genesis 3:22-24
If is had been the fruit as claimed by Eve then that would have been an entirely different message for us today, so you really peaked my interest.
Even claiming that it was an "apple" is following the error of Eve and of the serpent who saw it as the fruit instead of it being poisoned knowledge.
Yes, the fruit of the new found ability is that it made man incompatible with his environment. Man now has the ability to manipulate the environment and so the environment was changed to provide checks on those abilities. Man was able to manipulate the environment before. He just did not have the ability to manipulate it beyond what was "tov". Now, I do not think that this supports some Gaian or Luddite philosophy. As far as I know, HaTorah does not oppose technology. It only opposes the worship of technology, as well as the worship of nature. The point of the mythology is that we live in a challenging world, because we are now creatures that innovate in self centered and self destructive manners, "ra'". The challenges help to keep these in check.God gave humanity coats of skin (physical body) thereafter which does create natural restraints, but that is just a bandage on the wound.bluethread wrote: ... especially in a society without natural constraints.
Therefore, Adonai blessed Adam and Havah with natural constraints after the fall.
The same old poisoned knowledge is still infected into humanity ever after and going onward today into the 21st century.
They had lived with God's presence and he had been teaching them the same as your parents taught you and my parents taught me.
No, the correct working is "the knowledge of good and evil".JP Cusick wrote: The correct wording is important and the correct wording was = the knowledge of good and bad.
The bible specifically uses the word evil.JP Cusick wrote: The word "bad" is not the same as "evil" and using the wrong words confuses the message.
Can you cite the scripture that supports that opinion? I don't remember anything about God teaching them anything other than "Don't eat from that tree." How long had they been in God's presence? What moral lessons was he teaching them?BusB wrote: They had lived with God's presence and he had been teaching them the same as your parents taught you and my parents taught me.
Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but the term is "ra'". The English terms, "evil" and "bad" carry many connotations that are not inherent in that term. In the context of the first three chapters it refers to not "tov"(Adonai's ways). The principle, as developed as one progresses through the Tanakh(OT) is "the ways of the nations". If one is to get into a discussion over specific terms, arguing for the best fit term of a translation is not best evidence and often focus the discussion on the English language and not the actual historical, grammatical and cultural context, which is the proper focus in literary criticism.
I know that is the modern interpretation of the word, and I am just saying that the interpretation is not true.Rufus21 wrote:No, the correct working is "the knowledge of good and evil".JP Cusick wrote: The correct wording is important and the correct wording was = the knowledge of good and bad.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:5
You gave a link to this in your earlier post but apparently you didn't read it.
The bible specifically uses the word evil.
Yes, generally it is viewed as a detailed literal explanation of the origins of the universe, from the prospective of the scientific era. Many believe that they must accept that prospective. However, that is like interpreting the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution of these United States as scientific treatises. When approaching any literary work, one must do so in light of the historical setting of the time of it's writing, the language and grammar of the work and the culture of the people to whom it was originally written. These three generally accepted literary standards are rarely taken into account when people talk about what is written in the Scriptures.Rufus21 wrote: [Replying to bluethread]
Thanks for the insight! Obviously that passage has a lot of meaning that we aren't getting from the simplified translation (or a simplified reading).
I don't see any point in doing so.Rufus21 wrote:Can you cite the scripture that supports that opinion? I don't remember anything about God teaching them anything other than "Don't eat from that tree." How long had they been in God's presence? What moral lessons was he teaching them?BusB wrote: They had lived with God's presence and he had been teaching them the same as your parents taught you and my parents taught me.
