In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[The Tanager]

No. I wasn't saying that. What I am still saying is that the Breath of YHVH is the interface between Adam in the body set and YHVH in the Spirit.
Remember, Adam is not the body set, but the growing personality within the body set and the personality cannot grow at all/become a personality, without the Breath of YHVH.

I remember that you see Adam as a personality in a body set, yes. I disagree.

What people were there up to that point? There were none, unless we also count the Serpent as a 'people' since the Serpent was as sentient as Adam...but for whatever reason, was not suitable for the purpose of breeding.

Should we accept that YHVH had plans for Adam from The Beginning, which involved a woman being created directly from Adam's DNA [Gen 2:22] and it was always YHVH's intention/agenda to have the pair breed and leave The Garden and go into the world and multiply through their offspring and eventually subdue the whole planet?

Genesis 1:26-28 directly says that YHVH made male and female to rule over the planet as His image bearers and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth. So, yes, we should accept that YHVH had these plans from the beginning for Adam and Eve; the text explicitly says this at the first mention of creating humans.

This wouldn’t be leaving the garden as much as it would be extending the garden.

Even so, we cannot say therein that Adam understood what his role was in YHVH's plans. Adam does not even appear to know what the emotion he is experiencing, is triggered by.

Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?

It’s not obvious that Adam didn’t even understand that much.

So do I, but this is because we have information about NY.

Can we understand things about NY without experiencing those parts of NY? If so, then why is it different for Adam and death?

Why do you think Adam understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH?

The storyline definitely infers as much, is why.

YHVH had interaction with Adam and taught Adam language.

How do you know Adam understood it, rather than just had knowledge about it?

Why do you think Adam understood he had access to every other food source in the garden?

Why are you asking such questions Tanager? See: Gen 2:16

Why are you claiming that Adam didn’t understand death? See: Gen 2:17.

Genesis 1 places the creation of animals prior to Adam’s creation.

Correct.

But if we take your chronological view of Gen 2:18-20, then the animals were formed after YHVH saw Adam was lonely.

Yet the author is inspired by YHVH to write that YHVH didn't think Adam's loneliness was a good thing and brought those pre-created animals to Adam, to occupy Adams intellect as well as to help relieve Adams sense of being alone.

Where does it say that the animals were brought to Adam to help relieve Adam’s sense of being alone? It says YHVH wanted to make a helper fit for him (2:18). It then says YHVH had formed beasts and brought them to Adam to be named, but no mention of easing his loneliness (2:19). It then says that no helper was fit for him among the beasts (2:20). No mention of YHVH offering the animals as the possible helper.

Obviously we should therefore be able to agree that YHVH created Adams body set in such a way that the newly forming personality would respond predictably and YHVH would provide that which Adam had missing in his experience, even though Adam would not have had any understanding of why he felt as he did - but only knowledge [intuition] that he felt as he did.

Stop using ‘obviously’ as that is empty rhetoric. Make a case for your interpretation.

Adam was made to be in community with other humans, to multiply and fill the earth, not just to reign over it.

Do we also agree that it was only YHVH who knew and understood this at the time, and Adam did not?

No, we don’t agree. Genesis 1:28 explicitly has YHVH telling them, male and female, to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and reign over it. The rest of the storyline doesn’t have this repeated at a specific time to Adam and Eve, it doesn’t wait until after the Fall and then say, “this is when YHVH told Adam about this part” or anything like that.

Steady on there Tanager.

What separates humans from other beasts?
What sins do other beasts commit?

What do you mean by "thinking like a beast"? and "listening to a beast"?

They listen to a beast’s, the serpent’s, “wisdom”. They think with their desires, instead of as images of YHVH; they reject YHVH’s commandments for their own desires.

Adams body set was designed by YHVH, even before YHVH gave it breath and then placed it within The Garden...so any desires coming from that must have been to be able to do so. though how the body set was designed
This does not mean that YHVH is at fault for Adam not understanding what death was, or for taking the contrary advice from the Serpent.

Yes, those desires naturally come. But we aren’t beasts. We can overcome our fleshly desires because we are made in the image of YHVH. Beasts just act on instinct. YHVH’s at fault for allowing this possibility, but it’s better than the alternative. But, I agree, YHVH is not at fault for Adam and Eve using their free will in the way they did.

What it does mean is that YHVH would still be able use Adam for YHVH's agenda, even if Adam did eat of the forbidden fruit, because the task of having this Family Unit go into the world and breed and subdue it, would still be able to be made to happen.

Yes, which will come through the woman’s offspring (3:15).

But we aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that they don’t.

If that were the case, Adam wouldn't have succumb to the temptation to listen to any other rather than YHVH...unless Adam did not have a full understanding [rationality] as to what death was...and clearly YHVH did not give Adam any more than inexplicit instruction of what not to do and what consequence would happen if Adam did do what he was told not to do.
As such, Adam's rationality was not based in complete knowledge and thus Adam rationally could not have had complete understanding.

We are not omniscient and cannot be. And that isn’t what is required. Adam and Eve were called to trust YHVH’s command, even when something looked good to their eyes and various desires. One doesn’t need omniscience to not succumb to that temptation; one just needs to trust YHVH’s words.

Humans, having full knowledge of what death is, even by your interpretation, as the storyline continues, continually succumb to temptations rather than listen to YHVH. So, I don’t understand why you are saying that experiencing death would lead humans to not succumb to the temptation.

We can deduce from this, that The Garden was created after the both the Animals and Adam were created.

Yes, but you were saying the animals were made to try to aleve Adam’s loneliness, following your chronological take on 2:18-20. But that’s not the case. The forming of the animals in 2:19 refers to an event in the past, before Adam was even made.

We can also deduce that The Garden occupied a very small area somewhere on the planet, but did not occupy the whole planet.

Also -we can deduce that - in line with agreement #18 from our Main Agreement List;

[18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.]

That there were other humans in existence on the planet - in most habitual areas - before Adam was created and placed within The Garden setting, as the science verifies that we are all related and our common [DNA] relationship can be traced back to a female who has been named "Lucy" [and sometimes "Grandmother Lucy"] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
and therefore, YHVH must have borrowed from Lucy's DNA some of the coding which went into YHVH's creation of Adam.

I thought we were trying to follow the storyline. Yes, the garden was a specific area to start from. The existence of other humans and all of this is not a part of the storyline. Genesis is not a science book.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #191]

I remember that you see Adam as a personality in a body set, yes. I disagree.

"I disagree" is too vague to be a useful expression in an ongoing discussion Tanager. It gives the reader no information on why one disagrees.

Agreed?

And to be clear, I see everyone as personalities which are grown in the immediate environment of a body set, which itself is grown in the immediate environment of the planet set re the Main Agreement List.

3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.
4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
9: YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not

Genesis 1:26-28 directly says that YHVH made male and female to rule over the planet as His image bearers and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth.

YHVH said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So YHVH created man and woman in His and Her own image, in the image of YHVH created YHVH him and her; male and female created YHVH them.

YHVH blessed them, and YHVH said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Yes. This is specific to the creation of human beings [male and female] and appears to have happened before Adam was created and placed in The Garden which was also specifically planted by YHVH for that purpose.
It may be that the two events mentioned are separate events which have been conflated, since there appear to be two accounts of the creation process and two separate events can account for that being the reason.

Further investigation is therefore required.

So, yes, we should accept that YHVH had these plans from the beginning for Adam and Eve; the text explicitly says this at the first mention of creating humans.

Indeed, it is obvious that whatever YHVH puts Their creative hand to - there is an explicite agenda involved in doing so.

This wouldn’t be leaving the garden as much as it would be extending the garden.

We do not know because we are not informed.

We are informed that The Garden was planted for a specific purpose - after YHVH created Adams form and the form received The Breath of YHVH and was then placed into that environment.

Extending The Garden would be problematic as differing climates would prevent some of the plant life from being able to grow as well as they could do.

Venturing out into the greater environment of the planet would provide a means of being able to survey, and to decide how to subdue each area and shape it as a garden - using the fauna etc found locally.

Even so, we cannot say therein that Adam understood what his role was in YHVH's plans. Adam does not even appear to know what the emotion he is experiencing, is triggered by.

Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?

It’s not obvious that Adam didn’t even understand that much.

Again, such a statement is too vague to be a useful expression in an ongoing discussion Tanager. It gives the reader no information on why one thinks it is not obvious.

So do I, but this is because we have information about NY.

Can we understand things about NY without experiencing those parts of NY?

As you wrote;

I know certain things about New York without having ever experienced them.

We can know things, but not necessarily understand those things in the actual context that those things really are best understood.

Why do you think Adam understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH?

The storyline definitely infers as much, is why.

YHVH had interaction with Adam and taught Adam language.

How do you know Adam understood it, rather than just had knowledge about it?

Understanding language is part of what helps the communication process, is why Tanager.

In this case, Adam would have understood that he was not to eat the forbidden fruit. This is because he has first hand knowledge and thus understands what 'eating fruit' actually is. Why he was not to eat of it, didn't need to be understood and was not explained to him by YHVH. YHVH simply told Adam that if the fruit was eaten, then Adam would "die". YHVH doesn't explain to Adam why YHVH did not want Adam to have knowledge about good and evil.

What makes you think that Adam understood what death was?

Why are you claiming that Adam didn’t understand death? See: Gen 2:17.
“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.”

The only way in which Adam could have understood what death was, would have been if he had witnessed what death was.
There is no mention of death being witnessed by Adam, or of any death occurring in The Garden.

I do not dispute that YHVH warned Adam of consequence, but I am not willing to conflate the warning as the same thing as conveying information which would be explicitly understood by Adam, unless it could be agreed that YHVH showed Adam what death was.

Do you think YHVH showed Adam what death was?

If not, then we have no cause to expect Adam should understand what death was. His knowledge of the words "you shall surely die" cannot have been the same as his understanding of what "death" meant IF he had no example shown to him.

Similar to that, a child told by a parent that IF they do not do as they are told "the boogieman will get them", does not mean anything to the child other than that it infers something unpleasant, IF the child has never encountered [been shown] this entity called the boogieman.

The child does not have to understand what such an encounter would be like, in order to follow the parents instructions and do as the parent asks.

The same appears to be the case, re The Garden storyline - YHVH being the parent and Adam being the child.

Genesis 1 places the creation of animals prior to Adam’s creation.

Correct.

But if we take your chronological view of Gen 2:18-20, then the animals were formed after YHVH saw Adam was lonely.

This could still be true. YHVH could have created specific types of animals designed specifically for The Garden environment.

Where does it say that the animals were brought to Adam to help relieve Adam’s sense of being alone?

Gen 2: 18-20

It says YHVH wanted to make a helper fit for him (2:18). It then says YHVH had formed beasts and brought them to Adam to be named, but no mention of easing his loneliness (2:19). It then says that no helper was fit for him among the beasts (2:20). No mention of YHVH offering the animals as the possible helper.

Of course it mentions that Tanager. YHVH would have known and understood of course, but the point was in Adam coming to that same knowledge.
In the story we have Adam and The Voice in The Garden [YHVH] and YHVH understands that a Voice in The Garden won't be enough for Adam, due to the nature of the body set Adam was growing within.
YHVH wants Adam to learn and be occupied with gaining and distributing knowledge and understanding.
Thus - the animals were placed into The Garden which meant that Adam had company and something to do, in giving names to the company of animals.

However, as YHVH would have known - this would not permanently fix Adam's loneliness. Nor for that matter would it allow for YHVH's agenda for Adam to be able to multiply, to be enabled.

Why do you think YHVH choose to go that particular way with Adam, rather than simply create a suitable animal that Adam could mate with at the same time YHVH created Adam?

Make a case for your interpretation.

I having been building a case. The Word Document that I copy and paste this thread content into, is currently 287 pages and growing.

Adam was made to be in community with other humans, to multiply and fill the earth, not just to reign over it.

Do we also agree that it was only YHVH who knew and understood this at the time, and Adam did not?

No, we don’t agree. Genesis 1:28 explicitly has YHVH telling them, male and female, to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and reign over it.

This may have something to do with the humans created prior to Adam.

If no such humans were created prior to Adam, then we will have to explain why YHVH did not create both Adam and Eve at the same time, out of the same substance - and explain why YHVH chose to put Adam through a particular series of events with only Adam, before creating Eve.

What separates humans from other beasts?
What sins do other beasts commit?

What do you mean by "thinking like a beast"? and "listening to a beast"?

They listen to a beast’s, the serpent’s, “wisdom”.

The Serpent was a self aware sentient being, as was Adam.

Do you think that Adam should also be referred to as a 'beast' which YHVH created?

Are 'beasts' accountable re 'sin'?

Adams body set was designed by YHVH, even before YHVH gave it breath and then placed it within The Garden...so any desires coming from that must have been to be able to do so. though how the body set was designed
This does not mean that YHVH is at fault for Adam not understanding what death was, or for taking the contrary advice from the Serpent.

Yes, those desires naturally come. But we aren’t beasts. We can overcome our fleshly desires because we are made in the image of YHVH.

This lends itself nicely to the idea that Adam was not the body set but The Breath of YHVH within the body set.

Beasts just act on instinct.

Given that you claim the Serpent is a 'beast', we can ascertain that the Serpent was simply acting on instinct re its roll in the temptation?

YHVH’s at fault for allowing this possibility,

Nope. We cannot bring in the idea that YHVH is at fault in any way, or this conversation will have to end.

but it’s better than the alternative.

What 'alternative'?

What it does mean is that YHVH would still be able use Adam for YHVH's agenda, even if Adam did eat of the forbidden fruit, because the task of having this Family Unit go into the world and breed and subdue it, would still be able to be made to happen.

Yes, which will come through the woman’s offspring (3:15).

Then we could add to our Garden Agreement list;
6: YHVH is never at fault
and
7: Regardless of what humans choose to do, YHVH's agenda will get done

Agreed?

But we aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that they don’t.

If that were the case, Adam wouldn't have succumb to the temptation to listen to any other rather than YHVH...unless Adam did not have a full understanding [rationality] as to what death was...and clearly YHVH did not give Adam any more than inexplicit instruction of what not to do and what consequence would happen if Adam did do what he was told not to do.
As such, Adam's rationality was not based in complete knowledge and thus Adam rationally could not have had complete understanding.

Humans, having full knowledge of what death is, even by your interpretation, as the storyline continues, continually succumb to temptations rather than listen to YHVH. So, I don’t understand why you are saying that experiencing death would lead humans to not succumb to the temptation.

I am not saying that at all Tanager. I am simply pointing out that Adam did not understand what death actually was. as the Garden Story tells it.

I am not supposing that IF Adam had understanding of what death was, that Adam would not have succumb to the temptation to listen to any other voice but YHVH's, but that the likelihood of Adam not succumbing, would have increased.
Therefore, since YHVH did not show Adam what death was [just like the parent does not show the child what the boogieman is] YHVH increased the likelihood of Adam succumbing to other voices which were not YHVH.
Further to that, since YHVH placed the Serpent in The Garden setting, and the Serpent had a voice and knew how to use it, this also increased the chance of Adam succumbing to listening to other voices over The Voice of YHVH.

That is just simple math Tanager. YHVH made the environment to act odds on in favor of Adam succumbing to voices/actions saying/acting against what YHVH told Adam and odds against Adam sticking to what YHVH told Adam.

I thought we were trying to follow the storyline. Yes, the garden was a specific area to start from.

For sure I am attempting to follow The Garden storyline

The existence of other humans and all of this is not a part of the storyline.

It may well be, considering the storyline has two creation stories. Other humans as well as other animals.

Genesis is not a science book.

Even so - if we are to take the Story as true, we have to be able to reconcile it with what science shows us to also be true.

We cannot simply claim one is true but not the other, especially when the other is able to provide evidence about its story.

Agreed?

________

The Garden Story Agreement List;
1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.
3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.
4: The Serpent was one of the animals that Adam named
5: YHVH had plans from the beginning for Adam

[6: YHVH is never at fault
and
7: Regardless of what humans choose to do, YHVH's agenda will get done
8: There in nothing that humans can do which escapes YHVH's attention and full understanding]

[The Tanager]

"I disagree" is too vague to be a useful expression in an ongoing discussion Tanager. It gives the reader no information on why one disagrees.

We have been discussing the reasons in this thread.

Should we accept that YHVH had plans for Adam from The Beginning, which involved a woman being created directly from Adam's DNA [Gen 2:22] and it was always YHVH's intention/agenda to have the pair breed and leave The Garden and go into the world and multiply through their offspring and eventually subdue the whole planet?

Genesis 1:26-28 directly says that YHVH made male and female to rule over the planet as His image bearers and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth. So, yes, we should accept that YHVH had these plans from the beginning for Adam and Eve; the text explicitly says this at the first mention of creating humans.

Indeed, it is obvious that whatever YHVH puts Their creative hand to - there is an explicite agenda involved in doing so.

So, do you agree with me that the answer to your question about the bolded section above is “yes”?

This wouldn’t be leaving the garden as much as it would be extending the garden.

We do not know because we are not informed.

We are informed. Humans are to fill the earth and subdue it (1:28) and, when focusing in on humans, this begins with working and keeping the garden (2:15).

Extending The Garden would be problematic as differing climates would prevent some of the plant life from being able to grow as well as they could do.

Why do you think extending the garden would mean having identical plant life everywhere?

Venturing out into the greater environment of the planet would provide a means of being able to survey, and to decide how to subdue each area and shape it as a garden - using the fauna etc found locally.

Exactly. That’s extending the garden, i.e., the place where humans are caring for things how YHVH would want them to.

Again, such a statement is too vague to be a useful expression in an ongoing discussion Tanager. It gives the reader no information on why one thinks it is not obvious.

It was answering in like kind since you had just said “Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?” I see that you agree with me that it is not useful, so, stop saying “obviously”.

We can know things, but not necessarily understand those things in the actual context that those things really are best understood.

Why can’t we understand them? Why can’t we understand the size of buildings, pollution, crime present, the sports climate, etc.?

Understanding language is part of what helps the communication process, is why Tanager.

In this case, Adam would have understood that he was not to eat the forbidden fruit. This is because he has first hand knowledge and thus understands what 'eating fruit' actually is. Why he was not to eat of it, didn't need to be understood and was not explained to him by YHVH. YHVH simply told Adam that if the fruit was eaten, then Adam would "die". YHVH doesn't explain to Adam why YHVH did not want Adam to have knowledge about good and evil.

What makes you think that Adam understood what death was?

How do you know that Adam understood what it meant to “eat”? They hadn’t eaten in the storyline yet. And how do you know Adam understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH or anything else that your interpretation requires Adam to understand?

I think Adam understood what death was because of all the reasons I’ve already mentioned. That Adam doesn’t understand ‘death’, but understands all of the other concepts seems to be special pleading on your part. That’s why I’m asking the above things. I think Adam understood those things because the text implies it by mentioning them.

If the point of the text was that Adam didn’t need to understand the reason, YHVH would have just said “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,” with no explanation. An explanation is absolutely given and this implies Adam understood the communication, otherwise it is useless.

The only way in which Adam could have understood what death was, would have been if he had witnessed what death was.

You claim this, but where is the support for this claim?

This could still be true. YHVH could have created specific types of animals designed specifically for The Garden environment.

The story line doesn’t say these are specific types of animals designed specifically for the garden environment. It’s the exact same language as used in Genesis 1.

Gen 2: 18-20

It says YHVH wanted to make a helper fit for him (2:18). It then says YHVH had formed beasts and brought them to Adam to be named, but no mention of easing his loneliness (2:19). It then says that no helper was fit for him among the beasts (2:20). No mention of YHVH offering the animals as the possible helper.

Of course it mentions that Tanager. YHVH would have known and understood of course, but the point was in Adam coming to that same knowledge.
In the story we have Adam and The Voice in The Garden [YHVH] and YHVH understands that a Voice in The Garden won't be enough for Adam, due to the nature of the body set Adam was growing within.
YHVH wants Adam to learn and be occupied with gaining and distributing knowledge and understanding.
Thus - the animals were placed into The Garden which meant that Adam had company and something to do, in giving names to the company of animals.

However, as YHVH would have known - this would not permanently fix Adam's loneliness. Nor for that matter would it allow for YHVH's agenda for Adam to be able to multiply, to be enabled.

So, which phrase in these verses does it say the animals were brought to Adam to help relieve his loneliness? Otherwise, you simply seem to be adding a bunch to the story line to get your interpretation.

Why do you think YHVH choose to go that particular way with Adam, rather than simply create a suitable animal that Adam could mate with at the same time YHVH created Adam?

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” is what the text offers (1:24). This is about the oneness that should be between a man and a woman in marriage, as they work together towards YHVH’s mission to multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.

Obviously we should therefore be able to agree that YHVH created Adams body set in such a way that the newly forming personality would respond predictably and YHVH would provide that which Adam had missing in his experience, even though Adam would not have had any understanding of why he felt as he did - but only knowledge [intuition] that he felt as he did.

Stop using ‘obviously’ as that is empty rhetoric. Make a case for your interpretation.

I having been building a case. The Word Document that I copy and paste this thread content into, is currently 287 pages and growing.

I’m not talking about the entire case, but those statements where you write “Obviously we should …”. You don’t have 287 pages explaining filling in all that goes into “obviously”.

This may have something to do with the humans created prior to Adam.

Assuming there were any.

If no such humans were created prior to Adam, then we will have to explain why YHVH did not create both Adam and Eve at the same time, out of the same substance - and explain why YHVH chose to put Adam through a particular series of events with only Adam, before creating Eve.

I addressed the first part above. What’s the problem with putting Adam through a series of events without Eve?

The Serpent was a self aware sentient being, as was Adam.

Do you think that Adam should also be referred to as a 'beast' which YHVH created?

The serpent is directly referred to as a beast, so there is a clear distinction being made between Adam and the serpent. Adam and Eve listen to the beast’s logic, but they are meant to be different, ruling over the beasts, and following YHVH’s commands, not their own desires.

Yes, those desires naturally come. But we aren’t beasts. We can overcome our fleshly desires because we are made in the image of YHVH.

This lends itself nicely to the idea that Adam was not the body set but The Breath of YHVH within the body set.

Not any nicer than Adam being a spirit-matter composite being ontologically separate from YHVH.

Given that you claim the Serpent is a 'beast', we can ascertain that the Serpent was simply acting on instinct re its roll in the temptation?

The serpent is presented as different than the other beasts, so we can’t conclude this.

Nope. We cannot bring in the idea that YHVH is at fault in any way, or this conversation will have to end.

Then end it. Both of our views make YHVH responsible for the way our world is designed. Perhaps ‘fault’ is throwing you off. I think YHVH’s decision to allow for the possibility of sin is better than the alternative of a community without the possibility of love.

Then we could add to our Garden Agreement list;
6: YHVH is never at fault

Define ‘fault’ as you are using it here.

and
7: Regardless of what humans choose to do, YHVH's agenda will get done

Depends on what you mean here, too. My view is that part of YHVH’s agenda is allowing humans to set their own agenda, choosing whether or not to join YHVH’s agenda. Do you agree with that?

I am not supposing that IF Adam had understanding of what death was, that Adam would not have succumb to the temptation to listen to any other voice but YHVH's, but that the likelihood of Adam not succumbing, would have increased.

Thank you for clarifying. I didn’t quote the rest because we are already addressing the key elements elsewhere.

For sure I am attempting to follow The Garden storyline

Then why talk about what science verifies and make a conclusion that YHVH must have borrowed from Lucy’s DNA in YHVH’s creation of Adam? The story line says nothing of these things.

Even so - if we are to take the Story as true, we have to be able to reconcile it with what science shows us to also be true.

We cannot simply claim one is true but not the other, especially when the other is able to provide evidence about its story.

I’m not claiming one is true but not the other, I’m saying they are addressing totally different questions. Science doesn’t show us that Lucy’s DNA was used by YHVH in the creation of Adam.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #193]

"I disagree" is too vague to be a useful expression in an ongoing discussion Tanager. It gives the reader no information on why one disagrees.

We have been discussing the reasons in this thread.

All that is required then, is if we spot something which has already been mentioned, a quick reminder helps with the flow of conversation...

So, do you agree with me that the answer to your question about the bolded section above is “yes”?

We should accept that YHVH had plans for Adam from The Beginning, which involved a woman being created directly from Adam's DNA [Gen 2:22] and it was always YHVH's intention/agenda to have the pair breed and leave The Garden and go into the world and multiply through their offspring and eventually subdue the whole planet, yes.

5: YHVH had plans from the beginning for Adam

I agree for now. Given that there are two creation stories, I would have to see that YHVH gave the same instruction to Adam [re the second creation story] as was given to Mankind [re the first creation story].

Extending The Garden would be problematic as differing climates would prevent some of the plant life from being able to grow as well as they could do.

Why do you think extending the garden would mean having identical plant life everywhere?

Do we agree then that "extending The Garden" simply means "transforming the wild world by taming it? [thus subduing the Earth]?

It was answering in like kind since you had just said “Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?” I see that you agree with me that it is not useful, so, stop saying “obviously”.

It appears to annoy you, which is not my intention. I am speaking from the concept of YHVH's point of view. It would be obvious to YHVH. Obviously.

How do you know that Adam understood what it meant to “eat”? They hadn’t eaten in the storyline yet.

You mean immediately he was told re after being placed within The Garden?

How was Adam's body set fed between the time it was created and The Breath of YHVH giving it life, and it eventual placement within The Garden?
The story does not say either way.
Are we thus to assume at the point Adam was informed, that he hadn't ever eaten anything?

So let us assume then, that Adam did not know. What would be the cause of him finding out what 'eating' meant?

How do you know Adam understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH

He named the animals. Is it too much to assume that YHVH instructed Adam to do so, or do you think this happened by some other means?

I think Adam understood what death was because of all the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

Please remind the reader in bullet points all the reasons you say you have already mentioned.

I think Adam understood those things because the text implies it by mentioning them.

So you think the text implies that Adam understood what death was. Can we ascertain from that, that Death was in The Garden already? Perhaps Adam witnessed it before even been placed within The Garden, and thus understood what YHVH meant by death?

The only way in which Adam could have understood what death was, would have been if he had witnessed what death was.

You claim this, but where is the support for this claim?

I was not born with the knowledge of what death meant. Were you?

How I learned to understand about death was in seeing dead things. How did you learn to understand about death?

Even then, it cannot be said that in seeing things die, that we understand fully about what death is.
re what we have agreed to;

6: Human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.

The misdirection/misunderstanding might occur in how the individual understands what they are. "Spirit" or "flesh".

Thus YHVH may have been meaning more that Adam just dropping dead on the spot - so even if Adam had any idea what death was through having observed it happen to some beast, that is not what occurred re the storyline anyway, so what did YHVH mean by 'death/dying'?

More investigation is necessary.
Agreed?

YHVH could have created specific types of animals designed specifically for The Garden environment.

The story line doesn’t say these are specific types of animals designed specifically for the garden environment.

Then we can regard the idea that YHVH placed those types of animals into The Garden, which would suit the situation/position The Garden was grown on the Earth.

For example, if The Garden was positioned somewhere near the equator, it is unlikely that YHVH placed Polar bears in The Garden.

Agreed?

So, which phrase in these verses does it say the animals were brought to Adam to help relieve his loneliness?

The script I have already provided Tanager.

The LORD YHVH said, It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him and out of the ground the LORD YHVH formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what Adam would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The script also shows us that prior to that, YHVH took Adam, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. So Adam was alone in The Garden and YHVH saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and so YHVH created animals and placed them in The Garden with Adam and this helped Adam focus on something other than his own aloneness...

Agreed?

Why do you think YHVH choose to go that particular way with Adam, rather than simply create a suitable animal that Adam could mate with at the same time YHVH created Adam?

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” is what the text offers (1:24).

Genesis 1:24
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

This may have something to do with the humans created prior to Adam.

Assuming there were any.

The story line implies as much, since there are two creation stories. Scientific research also shows us that there are differing epochs between the two, re the traditional ideas that Adam was created by YHVH some thousands rather than tens of thousands of years ago.

This seems to be one of the contentions between so-called evolutionists and so-called creationists - the age of human beings...

If no such humans were created prior to Adam, then we will have to explain why YHVH did not create both Adam and Eve at the same time, out of the same substance - and explain why YHVH chose to put Adam through a particular series of events with only Adam, before creating Eve.

I addressed the first part above.

Do you mean the part where YHVH does not create Eve from the dust of the earth? I must have missed that. Can you show where you addressed that?

What’s the problem with putting Adam through a series of events without Eve?

I did not argue it was a problem.

Rather I am arguing that YHVH saw this as a necessary thing to do with Adam, and our task is to try and understand why.

Agreed?

The Serpent was a self aware sentient being, as was Adam.

Do you think that Adam should also be referred to as a 'beast' which YHVH created?

The serpent is directly referred to as a beast, so there is a clear distinction being made between Adam and the serpent.

Then we can examine what clear distinctions these might have been.

We know that the Serpent was intelligent and that it could speak language and converse with Adam.

Therefore, according to your reasoning, to be intelligent and speak and converse in language, is something beasts can do [since the Serpent called a "beast" could do that].

Can you tell the reader what it is that Adam could do, or had etc, which the other animals did not have, which shows us clearly that there are distinctions between Adam and the other animals?

Adam and Eve listen to the beast’s logic, but they are meant to be different, ruling over the beasts, and following YHVH’s commands, not their own desires.

For some reason it appears that Adam did not understand this about himself. What about Adam gave Adam this extra thing which other animals - including the Serpent - did not have?

Yes, those desires naturally come. But we aren’t beasts. We can overcome our fleshly desires because we are made in the image of YHVH.

This lends itself nicely to the idea that Adam was not the body set but The Breath of YHVH within the body set.

Not any nicer than Adam being a spirit-matter composite being ontologically separate from YHVH.

Until you provide the attribute that sets Adam aside from the beasts, we have no identification that this "spirit-matter composite being ontologically separate from YHVH" actually exists as a real thing separate from YHVH.

For now, all you appear to be arguing re that, is that YHVH's Breath is separate from YHVH.

Perhaps it is the idea of YHVH being separate from the physical universe which is causing some confusion between us?

The idea that personalities come to the realization that can have them think "I am not the flesh but the spirit", follows the same conceptual principle.

In that case, it would be a simple matter of saying - "a personality is ontologically separate from matter" and examine the possibility that most folk think of themselves as matter rather than of mind [spirit].

Given that you claim the Serpent is a 'beast', we can ascertain that the Serpent was simply acting on instinct re its roll in the temptation?

The serpent is presented as different than the other beasts, so we can’t conclude this.

Well we can say the same of Adam. Indeed, the Serpent is more closely related to Adam than the other beasts re intellect and verbal communication with language.

If you agree with that, perhaps you can provide the reader with anything which shows what was different between Adam and the Serpent.

Nope. We cannot bring in the idea that YHVH is at fault in any way, or this conversation will have to end.

Then end it.

If you are unwilling to see no fault in YHVH, we can end it now.
otherwise we can agree;
6: YHVH is never at fault
should be added on to our Garden Agreement List.
Agreed?

I think YHVH’s decision to allow for the possibility of sin...

Nevertheless, there is no fault on YHVH's part.

Agreed?

...is better than the alternative of a community without the possibility of love.

How would YHVH even make such a community, should YHVH want to do so?

7: Regardless of what humans choose to do, YHVH's agenda will get done

My view is that part of YHVH’s agenda is allowing humans to set their own agenda, choosing whether or not to join YHVH’s agenda. Do you agree with that?

Yes. We both agreed with that as per the Main Agreement List.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
9: YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not

For sure I am attempting to follow The Garden storyline

Then why talk about what science verifies and make a conclusion that YHVH must have borrowed from Lucy’s DNA in YHVH’s creation of Adam? The story line says nothing of these things.

You answered that already when you noted that Genesis is not a science book.

This does not mean that we have to ignore what evidence science has brought to the table as science should only verify how YHVH creates, and not be contrary to the biblical creation stories.

This would signify that any issues re creationists and evolutionists are not because of YHVH or the Genesis account.

YHVH would have created "Lucy" just as surely as YHVH would have created Adam.

Agreed?

Science doesn’t show us that Lucy’s DNA was used by YHVH in the creation of Adam.

Are you therefore arguing that Adam was a completely new creation, unrelated to Lucy?

If so, then science should be able to find the evidence of that in the DNA of modern humans, which would confirm that there is an unrelated specie within the overall specie of Humankind, unable to be linked with Lucy.

Otherwise, we have no choice but to understand that all of today's human DNA is able to be linked with Lucy's DNA, and therefore, Adam's form is related to Lucy in that same manner, since there is no other type DNA which could be linked with Adam, showing that YHVH could not have created Adam's form from a distinctively different set of DNA, thus my statement has to be considered true. YHVH must have borrowed from Lucy’s DNA in YHVH’s creation of Adam.

Agreed?

Also - there is the question I asked in an earlier post.

Q: Why didn't YHVH want Adam to have the knowledge of good and evil?

and re: Beasts being different from Adam

Q: Do/can beasts sin?

Re human's aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that beasts don’t.

Q: Is this to say that sin = "having rationality but not using it"?

[The Tanager]

I agree for now. Given that there are two creation stories, I would have to see that YHVH gave the same instruction to Adam [re the second creation story] as was given to Mankind [re the first creation story].

Why do you think they are different? The exact same term is used for both.

Do we agree then that "extending The Garden" simply means "transforming the wild world by taming it? [thus subduing the Earth]?

Yes.

It appears to annoy you, which is not my intention. I am speaking from the concept of YHVH's point of view. It would be obvious to YHVH. Obviously.

It comes across as “this is so obvious that I don’t have to support it,” when it very much isn’t obvious, but what we are discussing. If you then went ahead and supported it, that would be a different story. “Obviously” isn’t the main issue, but the lack of support for the claim you followed the “obviously” up with.

You mean immediately he was told re after being placed within The Garden?

How was Adam's body set fed between the time it was created and The Breath of YHVH giving it life, and it eventual placement within The Garden?
The story does not say either way.
Are we thus to assume at the point Adam was informed, that he hadn't ever eaten anything?

I don’t think so, but the logic you used concerning ‘death’ would seem to lead to that.

He named the animals. Is it too much to assume that YHVH instructed Adam to do so, or do you think this happened by some other means?

What do you mean by “understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH”? And why don’t you interpret this as Adam knowing he was told to name the animals, without understanding the relationship, like you interpret Adam knowing he was told that death would result, but not understanding what that really meant?

Please remind the reader in bullet points all the reasons you say you have already mentioned.

- Adam knew what YHVH wanted him to do (1:28, 2:15)
- Adam knew YHVH cared enough about him to seek a partner for him rather than leaving him alone (2:18)
- YHVH told him eating of that fruit would bring death (2:16-17)
- Eve knows this death is not desirable because the serpent tries to convince her it won’t lead to death (3:4)
- YHVH, in Genesis (or the Pentateuch or the Tanakh or the Christian Bible) isn’t a random God, punishing people for no reason, yet your interpretation would involve YHVH punishing Adam and Eve for something they didn’t understand
- Adam and Eve don’t ever say anything like “but we didn’t know what death meant” or “you gave us nothing to distinguish right from wrong” or anything like that.
- Your interpretation would seem to also mean Adam and Eve didn’t understand other concepts mentioned, but you accept that they understood those, so your interpretation seems like special pleading
- It seems pointless for YHVH to tell Adam the explanation for why not to eat of the tree, if YHVH knew he didn’t understand it; rather YHVH would have just said “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat”

So you think the text implies that Adam understood what death was. Can we ascertain from that, that Death was in The Garden already? Perhaps Adam witnessed it before even been placed within The Garden, and thus understood what YHVH meant by death?

I think both fit. Physical death could have already been present within or without the garden (through the animals, plants, etc.). But I’m not convinced one needs to experience something to understand it, so, physical death wouldn’t have had to be present.

But the death spoken of isn’t just about physical death; it’s also about a relational separation. You even say that Adam understood about the relationship with the Voice of YHVH, so why wouldn’t that include a recognition of what not having that relationship would mean?

I was not born with the knowledge of what death meant. Were you?

How I learned to understand about death was in seeing dead things. How did you learn to understand about death?

I don’t remember, but even if I learned it by seeing dead things, you need to show that no one can understand death without experiencing it. I don’t see why someone (even if I didn’t) could understand what death was without seeing a dead thing, just by gaining understanding through contrast.

Even then, it cannot be said that in seeing things die, that we understand fully about what death is.

Sure, but why think “full understanding” is needed?

Then we can regard the idea that YHVH placed those types of animals into The Garden, which would suit the situation/position The Garden was grown on the Earth.

For example, if The Garden was positioned somewhere near the equator, it is unlikely that YHVH placed Polar bears in The Garden.

Yes, but this doesn’t mean YHVH brought them to Adam after sensing the loneliness and then discovered that this didn’t do the trick. The text doesn’t offer the reason as being to try to ease Adam’s loneliness. We already know from Genesis 1 that YHVH always planned to have male and female.

So, which phrase in these verses does it say the animals were brought to Adam to help relieve his loneliness?

The script I have already provided Tanager.

The LORD YHVH said, It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him and out of the ground the LORD YHVH formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what Adam would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Where in this script does it say the animals were brought to help relieve his loneliness? It says YHVH formed animals and Adam named them. It does go on to say that these animals were not a suitable partner for Adam, but the plan all along, shown in Genesis 1, was for male and female humans.

The text, to me, reads as almost an aside. Yes, reader, Adam had other beings he was interacting with, but they weren’t intended to meet his loneliness. This is setting up the reason for marriage.

The script also shows us that prior to that, YHVH took Adam, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. So Adam was alone in The Garden and YHVH saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and so YHVH created animals and placed them in The Garden with Adam and this helped Adam focus on something other than his own aloneness…

No, it doesn’t say that. You are reading that into the passage. What the text does say is that Eve is a suitable helper, that will fix the loneliness.

Why do you think YHVH choose to go that particular way with Adam, rather than simply create a suitable animal that Adam could mate with at the same time YHVH created Adam?

Sorry, Gen 2:24. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This is what the text offers, about the oneness of male and female in marriage, working together towards YHVH’s mission to multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.

The story line implies as much, since there are two creation stories.

The story line doesn’t imply that. The same term is used for man in both creation stories. The second creation story focuses on humans, while the first creation story is a broad overview.

Scientific research also shows us that there are differing epochs between the two, re the traditional ideas that Adam was created by YHVH some thousands rather than tens of thousands of years ago.

This seems to be one of the contentions between so-called evolutionists and so-called creationists - the age of human beings...

The traditional idea that Adam was created by YHVH some thousands years ago is built off of treating Genesis 1-11 as modern history and science, when it wasn’t written that way.

I addressed the first part above.

Do you mean the part where YHVH does not create Eve from the dust of the earth? I must have missed that.

No, I mean the part about not creating Adam and Eve at the same time. What is the point behind that? I addressed it when talking about the oneness in marriage (2:24).

Rather I am arguing that YHVH saw this as a necessary thing to do with Adam, and our task is to try and understand why.

Yes, we need to understand why this detail is there.

Then we can examine what clear distinctions these might have been.

We know that the Serpent was intelligent and that it could speak language and converse with Adam.

Therefore, according to your reasoning, to be intelligent and speak and converse in language, is something beasts can do [since the Serpent called a "beast" could do that].

Can you tell the reader what it is that Adam could do, or had etc, which the other animals did not have, which shows us clearly that there are distinctions between Adam and the other animals?

No, according to my reasoning, beasts can’t do that. The original readers would not think beasts could do that except under very special circumstances. Thus, when a beast (the serpent) does this, there is something unique about that beast. This is why readers have always associated this serpent with the Satan.

Adam and the serpent are different than all the other beasts, but Adam is also different than the serpent. Adam is meant to live by trusting YHVH, living by spiritual desires; the serpent appeals to beastly desires.

Adam and Eve listen to the beast’s logic, but they are meant to be different, ruling over the beasts, and following YHVH’s commands, not their own desires.

For some reason it appears that Adam did not understand this about himself. What about Adam gave Adam this extra thing which other animals - including the Serpent - did not have?

Why do you think it appears Adam didn’t understand this?

Until you provide the attribute that sets Adam aside from the beasts, we have no identification that this "spirit-matter composite being ontologically separate from YHVH" actually exists as a real thing separate from YHVH.

For now, all you appear to be arguing re that, is that YHVH's Breath is separate from YHVH.

Perhaps it is the idea of YHVH being separate from the physical universe which is causing some confusion between us?

The idea that personalities come to the realization that can have them think "I am not the flesh but the spirit", follows the same conceptual principle.

In that case, it would be a simple matter of saying - "a personality is ontologically separate from matter" and examine the possibility that most folk think of themselves as matter rather than of mind [spirit].

If YHVH’s breath is a human soul (and therefore, there are numerous YHVH’s breaths), then yes, I’m arguing the the text shows this ontological separation. I think it clearly distinguishes YHVH from the physical universe as well. Following spiritual desires versus fleshly desires is not the same as “I am not my material body but a soul trapped within it” or something like that. The text clearly has Adam being made of dirt and having the breath of life from YHVH, as well, so a personality isn’t ontologically separate from matter, according to the story line of the text.

If you are unwilling to see no fault in YHVH, we can end it now.
otherwise we can agree;
6: YHVH is never at fault
should be added on to our Garden Agreement List.

If by ‘fault’ you mean something like “made an unloving choice,” or “made a mistake,” then I agree.

...is better than the alternative of a community without the possibility of love.

How would YHVH even make such a community, should YHVH want to do so?

Make a world where all agents are pre-determined to always make the morally perfect choice in every situation.

This does not mean that we have to ignore what evidence science has brought to the table as science should only verify how YHVH creates, and not be contrary to the biblical creation stories.

This would signify that any issues re creationists and evolutionists are not because of YHVH or the Genesis account.

YHVH would have created "Lucy" just as surely as YHVH would have created Adam.

I agree they aren’t contrary. I don’t know the science of Lucy and the philosophical claims from this enough to discuss its scientific merit and then see how that information fits. But we are talking about the story line, anyway.

Also - there is the question I asked in an earlier post.

Q: Why didn't YHVH want Adam to have the knowledge of good and evil?

YHVH didn’t want Adam to choose for himself what was ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ but to listen to and trust YHVH’s definitions of good and evil, and rightfully so, as the omniscient creator of everything.

and re: Beasts being different from Adam

Q: Do/can beasts sin?

The story line doesn’t address it. I don’t think they are moral agents with free will and, therefore, they can’t sin.

Re human's aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that beasts don’t.

Q: Is this to say that sin = "having rationality but not using it"?

No, it's not to say that.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #195]

Do we agree then that "extending The Garden" simply means "transforming the wild world by taming it? [thus subduing the Earth]?

Yes.

9: Extending The Garden" means "transforming the wild world by taming it? Thus subduing the Earth

“Obviously” isn’t the main issue, but the lack of support for the claim you followed the “obviously” up with.

The support has been ongoing throughout our discussion. That there is nothing obvious therein for you, is the issue.

That should obviously be acceptable re working things out - and we can address the prior support appropriately as we go along, to show connection.

This is simply preliminary in that it allows a show and tell as to what is and what is not obvious to each of us.

How was Adam's body set fed between the time it was created and The Breath of YHVH giving it life, and it eventual placement within The Garden?
The story does not say either way.
Are we thus to assume at the point Adam was informed, that he hadn't ever eaten anything?

I don’t think so, but the logic you used concerning ‘death’ would seem to lead to that.

So is it necessary to agree that there was Death in The Garden, even that no death was mentioned?

What do you mean by “understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH”?

In the same way that Joey understands his relationship with the cowardly voice which he hears when not on medication.
In the same way Tam hears the voice of her lord, and and listens to what she is told by the voice.

Or do you think that YHVH could actually be seen by Adam?

And why don’t you interpret this as Adam knowing he was told to name the animals, without understanding the relationship, like you interpret Adam knowing he was told that death would result, but not understanding what that really meant?

To interpret it that way, - that Adam didn't know, but only assumed that the voice he heard interacting with him, was YHVH...
...we would have to come up with a reason for why Adam would have made that up for himself.

• Adam knew what YHVH wanted him to do (1:28, 2:15)

• - Adam knew YHVH cared enough about him to seek a partner for him rather than leaving him alone (2:18)

• - YHVH told him eating of that fruit would bring death (2:16-17)

• - Eve knows this death is not desirable because the serpent tries to convince her it won’t lead to death (3:4)

• - YHVH, in Genesis (or the Pentateuch or the Tanakh or the Christian Bible) isn’t a random God, punishing people for no reason, yet your interpretation would involve YHVH punishing Adam and Eve for something they didn’t understand

• - Adam and Eve don’t ever say anything like “but we didn’t know what death meant” or “you gave us nothing to distinguish right from wrong” or anything like that.

• - Your interpretation would seem to also mean Adam and Eve didn’t understand other concepts mentioned, but you accept that they understood those, so your interpretation seems like special pleading

• - It seems pointless for YHVH to tell Adam the explanation for why not to eat of the tree, if YHVH knew he didn’t understand it; rather YHVH would have just said “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat”

We can address those points after we agree with how Adam knew the voice he heard interacting with him, was YHVH.

So you think the text implies that Adam understood what death was. Can we ascertain from that, that Death was in The Garden already? Perhaps Adam witnessed it before even been placed within The Garden, and thus understood what YHVH meant by death?

Physical death could have already been present within or without the garden (through the animals, plants, etc.).

I agree that it must have been present within The Garden setting, in order for Adam to grasp what YHVH may have meant by telling Adam "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

But I’m not convinced one needs to experience something to understand it, so, physical death wouldn’t have had to be present.

Without actual experience, one can grasp the fundamentals but this does not mean one understands fully about what anything means.

For example, you and I know what death means but neither of us will fully understand it until it actually happens to us.

Agreed?

But the death spoken of isn’t just about physical death; it’s also about a relational separation.

Hindsight is a wonderful device. However, we are not talking about the readers point of reference, but about Adam's, re the storyline.
There is no information showing us that Adam was told anything about relational separation.

How did you learn to understand about death?

I don’t remember, but even if I learned it by seeing dead things, you need to show that no one can understand death without experiencing it.

I think that those who have NDEs and share their experiences, understand a lot more about death, than those who have not.

Even then, it cannot be said that in seeing things die, that we understand fully about what death is.

Sure, but why think “full understanding” is needed?

What makes you think that I think that?

The whole point I have been trying to make is that one doesn't even need to understand anything for them to do what YHVH tells them to do.

Whereas, you appear to be saying that we shouldn't expect punishment from YHVH, if we do not have some kind of understanding as to what YHVH means.

My argument is that the more understanding we have about something, the less likely we are to trip up.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because it can easily lead to exactly what it led Adam to, which appears to be one of the main points of the storyline.

Agreed?

This doesn’t mean YHVH brought them to Adam after sensing the loneliness and then discovered that this didn’t do the trick. The text doesn’t offer the reason as being to try to ease Adam’s loneliness.

Yes - the text does offer that to us. I even quoted the text to show that this was the case.

Such can be explained that this was YHVH's way of getting Adam to learn how to work with his loneliness by exercising his intellect and focusing it on things outside of his self. It was precursor to the eventual growing of the personality Eve, which YHVH would introduce to Adam.

We already know from Genesis 1 that YHVH always planned to have male and female.

For the time being, my focus is upon the second creation story involving The Garden and Adam.

I am not convinced the two stories should be conflated.

Where in this script does it say the animals were brought to help relieve his loneliness?

It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him an help meet

Yes, reader, Adam had other beings he was interacting with, but they weren’t intended to meet his loneliness.

I think the reader will understand the importance of other animals - how they are able to exhibit love and other sentient attributes among their own kind and in some cases, also with others not of their kind.
Also, we should know that for many folk - animals do indeed help with many symptoms of loneliness, and these are called 'pets' in today's world.

Therefore, I see no reason why YHVH would not want Adam to experience the other animals in The Garden and how to care for them, and how doing so would help alleviate Adams symptoms of loneliness.

A man can do without a woman and not be lonely.

A man cannot do without a woman and "multiple".

But YHVH had it that the woman came some time after YHVH placed the animals in The Garden. We are not informed how much time passed between the two events.

The script also shows us that prior to that, YHVH took Adam, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. So Adam was alone in The Garden and YHVH saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and so YHVH created animals and placed them in The Garden with Adam and this helped Adam focus on something other than his own aloneness…

No, it doesn’t say that. You are reading that into the passage.

The story lends itself to that as a matter of having to in order to grasp it more fully. It is not the readers fault that the story was written in such a succinct manner, but this manner was inspired by YHVH [3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.]
There is no reason that the reader cannot take the clues provided and flesh the story out, as long as the storyline is still followed.

Why do you think YHVH choose to go that particular way with Adam, rather than simply create a suitable animal that Adam could mate with at the same time YHVH created Adam?

Sorry, Gen 2:24. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

We have not got to that point in the storyline yet. When we do, then we can look into that in more detail.

Scientific research also shows us that there are differing epochs between the two, re the traditional ideas that Adam was created by YHVH some thousands rather than tens of thousands of years ago.

This seems to be one of the contentions between so-called evolutionists and so-called creationists - the age of human beings...

The traditional idea that Adam was created by YHVH some thousands years ago is built off of treating Genesis 1-11 as modern history and science, when it wasn’t written that way.

Given the evidence of evolution, I agree.
Perhaps the tradition you mention, grew from the idea that the written language is comparatively new re the timeline of the evolution of human beings.

[Search: "When did humans first create written language"]

The earliest known writing was invented there around 3400 B.C. in an area called Sumer near the Persian Gulf. The development of a Sumerian script was influenced by local materials: clay for tablets and reeds for styluses (writing tools).

The story of The Garden and Adam may be far more older than that, and something told around the fireside - in far more detail than the biblical version.

Agreed?

Do you mean the part where YHVH does not create Eve from the dust of the earth? I must have missed that.

No, I mean the part about not creating Adam and Eve at the same time. What is the point behind that?

It appears to have been because Adam had things YHVH wanted Adam to learn, before starting with the breeding program.

Rather I am arguing that YHVH saw this as a necessary thing to do with Adam, and our task is to try and understand why.

Yes, we need to understand why this detail is there.

It appears to have been because Adam had things YHVH wanted Adam to learn, before starting with the breeding program.

Agreed?

Therefore, according to your reasoning, to be intelligent and speak and converse in language, is something beasts can do [since the Serpent called a "beast" could do that].

Can you tell the reader what it is that Adam could do, or had etc, which the other animals did not have, which shows us clearly that there are distinctions between Adam and the other animals?

No, according to my reasoning, beasts can’t do that.

Earlier you wrote;

They listen to a beast’s, the serpent’s, “wisdom”.

Can you explain the apparent contradiction you are arguing?

Adam and the serpent are different than all the other beasts, but Adam is also different than the serpent. Adam is meant to live by trusting YHVH, living by spiritual desires; the serpent appeals to beastly desires.

Are you saying that Adam was a 'beast' like all the other animals YHVH created, but not exactly like all the other beasts?

Earlier on you wrote;

They think with their desires, instead of as images of YHVH; they reject YHVH’s commandments for their own desires.

It would be fair to say then, that Adam was different from the other beasts - including the Serpent - on account of his unique position in The Garden - in communion with YHVH and undertaking specific tasks assigned to his by YHVH.

Agreed?

Adam and Eve listen to the beast’s logic, but they are meant to be different, ruling over the beasts, and following YHVH’s commands, not their own desires.

For some reason it appears that Adam did not understand this about himself. What about Adam gave Adam this extra thing which other animals - including the Serpent - did not have?

Why do you think it appears Adam didn’t understand this?

Because he listened to a voice which wasn't YHVH and which contradicted what YHVH had spoken to him

If he had understood how different he was to everyone else, and how amazing that it was that YHVH had grown Adam specifically to engage with him in The Garden Setting, there would have been no reason why Adam would consider giving all that up.

More in depth to that, relates to the question:

Q: Why didn't YHVH want Adam to have knowledge of good and evil?

Perhaps it is the idea of YHVH being separate from the physical universe which is causing some confusion between us?

The idea that personalities come to the realization that can have them think "I am not the flesh but the spirit", follows the same conceptual principle.

In that case, it would be a simple matter of saying - "a personality is ontologically separate from matter" and examine the possibility that most folk think of themselves as matter rather than of mind [spirit].

If YHVH’s breath is a human soul (and therefore, there are numerous YHVH’s breaths), then yes, I’m arguing the the text shows this ontological separation.

This moves us to the crux.

ontological - relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

YHVH knows who YHVH is...YHVH knows and understands the nature of YHVH's being.

Agreed?

Do you think that Adam also knew and understood the nature of YHVH's being?

If so, please explain your reasoning.

If by ‘fault’ you mean something like “made an unloving choice,” or “made a mistake,” then I agree.

I mean the use of the word should never be used in relation to YHVH.

Agreed?

...is better than the alternative of a community without the possibility of love.

How would YHVH even make such a community, should YHVH want to do so?

Make a world where all agents are pre-determined to always make the morally perfect choice in every situation.

What do love and morals have to do with each other? What is "morally perfect"?

Please expand on your concepts here, Tanager.

One question re that;

Q: Do you think that a system such as evolution where all agents are pre-determined would essentially be a 'morally perfect' system, even that animals evolving are unaware of being created or who their creator is?

Currently my answer to that question is ;

A: Any system which is created by YHVH would be morally perfect, just because it was created by YHVH.

Do you agree with this?

This does not mean that we have to ignore what evidence science has brought to the table as science should only verify how YHVH creates, and not be contrary to the biblical creation stories.

This would signify that any issues re creationists and evolutionists are not because of YHVH or the Genesis account.

YHVH would have created "Lucy" just as surely as YHVH would have created Adam.

I agree they aren’t contrary.

Then we can add that to our Garden Agreement List.
10: YHVH would have created "Lucy" just as surely as YHVH would have created "Adam".

I don’t know the science of Lucy and the philosophical claims from this enough to discuss its scientific merit and then see how that information fits.

Since it is not contrary to either creation stories, it can stay on the table in the shadows along with the "conceptual idea of absolute randomness."
[There is plenty of information at hand should we require it from the internet]

But we are talking about the story line, anyway.

The Garden storyline, specifically - I agree...

Q: Why didn't YHVH want Adam to have the knowledge of good and evil?

YHVH didn’t want Adam to choose for himself what was ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ but to listen to and trust YHVH’s definitions of good and evil, and rightfully so, as the omniscient creator of everything.

Q: What in the story can we identify clearly as being YHVH teaching Adam the definitions of good and evil?

also:

Q: Why should we think that YHVH wanted Adam to know any definitions of good and evil?

Q: Do/can beasts sin?

The story line doesn’t address it. I don’t think they are moral agents with free will and, therefore, they can’t sin.

Therefore we could agree that animals in such a state are "Morally perfect"?

Re human's aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that beasts don’t.

Q: Is this to say that sin = "having rationality but not using it"?

No, it's not to say that.

Too vague. Would you like to add details?


The Garden Story Agreement List;
1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.
3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.
4: The Serpent was one of the animals that Adam named
5: YHVH had plans from the beginning for Adam
6: YHVH is never at fault
and
7: Regardless of what humans choose to do, YHVH's agenda will get done
8: There is nothing that humans can do which escapes YHVH's attention and full understanding
9: Extending The Garden" means "transforming the wild world by taming it? Thus subduing the Earth
10: YHVH would have created "Lucy" just as surely as YHVH would have created "Adam".

[The Tanager]

So is it necessary to agree that there was Death in The Garden, even that no death was mentioned?

No.

In the same way that Joey understands his relationship with the cowardly voice which he hears when not on medication.
In the same way Tam hears the voice of her lord, and and listens to what she is told by the voice.

Or do you think that YHVH could actually be seen by Adam?

So, you just mean that Adam understood that YHVH was communicating with him? I agree he did, but the text doesn’t say that directly and so why not apply your know/understand distinction here like you do with Adam’s knowledge (but lack of understanding) of what death meant?

We can address those points after we agree with how Adam knew the voice he heard interacting with him, was YHVH.

Okay.

I agree that it must have been present within The Garden setting, in order for Adam to grasp what YHVH may have meant by telling Adam "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

You aren’t agreeing with me because I’m not convinced it had to be present for Adam to understand what death meant. You are still just asserting that experience is needed, without supporting why you think that is so.

Without actual experience, one can grasp the fundamentals but this does not mean one understands fully about what anything means.

For example, you and I know what death means but neither of us will fully understand it until it actually happens to us.

Why does it need to be more than the fundamentals?

Hindsight is a wonderful device. However, we are not talking about the readers point of reference, but about Adam's, re the storyline.
There is no information showing us that Adam was told anything about relational separation.

If that is included in the idea of death in the author’s time period, then yes we are given that information. Life and death was a way to talk about one’s spiritual relationship with YHVH in their context.

I think that those who have NDEs and share their experiences, understand a lot more about death, than those who have not.

If NDEs are real, then they might understand more about death (if that is what is talked about in NDEs), but we weren’t talking about a comparison; we were talking about whether Adam needed to experience death to understand it enough.

The whole point I have been trying to make is that one doesn't even need to understand anything for them to do what YHVH tells them to do.

Whereas, you appear to be saying that we shouldn't expect punishment from YHVH, if we do not have some kind of understanding as to what YHVH means.

I agree one doesn’t need to understand anything to do what one tells you to do. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t understand anything about it, though. The text has YHVH telling Adam the reason was that it would lead to death. I think, unless told otherwise in the text, that one should assume Adam understood what YHVH was saying, not as fully as an omniscient being would, but enough, to the point where YHVH’s punishment makes sense rather than YHVH punishing Adam for something he didn’t understand was wrong.

My argument is that the more understanding we have about something, the less likely we are to trip up.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because it can easily lead to exactly what it led Adam to, which appears to be one of the main points of the storyline.

I don’t agree that this is a point, much less a main one, of the storyline. Adam and Eve have enough information to be held accountable for their actions.

Yes - the text does offer that to us. I even quoted the text to show that this was the case.

Such can be explained that this was YHVH's way of getting Adam to learn how to work with his loneliness by exercising his intellect and focusing it on things outside of his self. It was precursor to the eventual growing of the personality Eve, which YHVH would introduce to Adam.

…

It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him an help meet

That doesn’t say the animals were made to be a help meet. What text says that?

For the time being, my focus is upon the second creation story involving The Garden and Adam.

I am not convinced the two stories should be conflated.

Then you aren’t following the storyline since these are put one after the other in the story line of the document we have.

I think the reader will understand the importance of other animals - how they are able to exhibit love and other sentient attributes among their own kind and in some cases, also with others not of their kind.
Also, we should know that for many folk - animals do indeed help with many symptoms of loneliness, and these are called 'pets' in today's world.

Therefore, I see no reason why YHVH would not want Adam to experience the other animals in The Garden and how to care for them, and how doing so would help alleviate Adams symptoms of loneliness.

A man can do without a woman and not be lonely.

A man cannot do without a woman and "multiple".

The story doesn’t say this, though.

The script also shows us that prior to that, YHVH took Adam, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. So Adam was alone in The Garden and YHVH saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and so YHVH created animals and placed them in The Garden with Adam and this helped Adam focus on something other than his own aloneness…

The story lends itself to that as a matter of having to in order to grasp it more fully. It is not the readers fault that the story was written in such a succinct manner, but this manner was inspired by YHVH [3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.]
There is no reason that the reader cannot take the clues provided and flesh the story out, as long as the storyline is still followed.

The story makes perfect sense without these additions.

We have not got to that point in the storyline yet. When we do, then we can look into that in more detail.

It appears to have been because Adam had things YHVH wanted Adam to learn, before starting with the breeding program.

You asked why YHVH chose to go that way (separate creation of Eve from Adam rather than from a different pile of dirt), so you took us here, even commenting on it a few quotes later in your latest post (the second quote above).

Yes, YHVH could have wanted Adam to learn things before “starting the breeding program,” or perhaps not. I’m saying the text tells us the reason this detail is included in 2:24. It was to highlight the equality and oneness between male and female as an extension of Genesis 1’s talk about male and female being made in YHVH’s image and meant to rule as that image, multiplying and filling the earth. That is why Adam’s loneliness is talked about. It’s about being in community, working together, procreating, etc.

The story of The Garden and Adam may be far more older than that, and something told around the fireside - in far more detail than the biblical version.

I do think it was orally passed down, but there’s no way to tell whether it was told in far more detail or not. Since we agree on YHVH’s inspiration of this story, we know that its current version has all the details that are needed.

Therefore, according to your reasoning, to be intelligent and speak and converse in language, is something beasts can do [since the Serpent called a "beast" could do that].

Can you tell the reader what it is that Adam could do, or had etc, which the other animals did not have, which shows us clearly that there are distinctions between Adam and the other animals?

No, according to my reasoning, beasts can’t do that.

Earlier you wrote;

They listen to a beast’s, the serpent’s, “wisdom”.

Can you explain the apparent contradiction you are arguing?

Normal beasts aren’t able to speak and reason like humans are. Adam is able to do these things and is not called a beast. The serpent is able to do these things and is called a beast, so the serpent is a unique beast from all the rest in this story. The serpent reasons in the image of beasts (what looks good and what it desires to have), rather than in the image of YHVH (what is actually good and what one’s desires should be). Adam and Eve listen to the beastly wisdom, rather than YHVH’s wisdom.

It would be fair to say then, that Adam was different from the other beasts - including the Serpent - on account of his unique position in The Garden - in communion with YHVH and undertaking specific tasks assigned to his by YHVH.

Yes.

Because he listened to a voice which wasn't YHVH and which contradicted what YHVH had spoken to him

If he had understood how different he was to everyone else, and how amazing that it was that YHVH had grown Adam specifically to engage with him in The Garden Setting, there would have been no reason why Adam would consider giving all that up.

The reason isn’t rational, but there still is one. This is free will.

YHVH knows who YHVH is...YHVH knows and understands the nature of YHVH's being.

I agree.

Do you think that Adam also knew and understood the nature of YHVH's being?

If so, please explain your reasoning.

I think Adam and Eve understood YHVH was ontologically distinct from them, but I don’t think they knew everything about YHVH’s nature. I think the first is clear from them referring to YHVH as YHVH instead of ‘myself’ or anything like that, the serpent’s claim that if they ate of the fruit they would be like YHVH (which assumes they are not like YHVH and, therefore, not YHVH), them hiding from YHVH after their disobedience, referring to YHVH as in the second person (you) like in 3:13.

I mean the use of the word should never be used in relation to YHVH.

If by ‘fault’ you mean something like “made an unloving choice,” or “made a mistake,” then I agree. If by ‘fault’ you mean something like “is responsible for,” then I disagree. It’s YHVH’s responsibility/fault that creation is set up the way it is.

What do love and morals have to do with each other? What is "morally perfect"?

Please expand on your concepts here, Tanager.

A world where everyone always must make the morally good choice is one without free will, by definition. Without free will, there can be no love. There can be something that pretends to be love, but love cannot be forced, by definition. I believe YHVH had the choice to:

1) make a world with moral perfection baked into it, but in order to do so, logically, this world could not have love in it.

2) make a world that would make a loving community between YHVH and humans possible, but in order to so, logically, this world could produce moral evil as well

3) make a world that predetermines both moral good and moral evil, but in order to do so, logically, this world could not have love in it.

Of these 3 (I’ll consider others, if you wish), #2 is the best choice (because of the greatness of love), then #1 (because if there is no love and free will, morally good actions are better than morally evil ones), then #3.

Q: Do you think that a system such as evolution where all agents are pre-determined would essentially be a 'morally perfect' system, even that animals evolving are unaware of being created or who their creator is?

Currently my answer to that question is ;

A: Any system which is created by YHVH would be morally perfect, just because it was created by YHVH.

If I understand you correctly, I don’t agree. I think logic is of the image of YHVH (i.e., YHVH must be logical). So, YHVH could not make a square circle exist just because it’s YHVH. Square circles are nonsense and omnipotence can’t change that (but omniscience wouldn’t want to).

In the same sense, if YHVH created a moral system with moral evils pre-determined to take place between creatures, then that moral system could not, logically, be morally perfect. But I do think YHVH, as omnibenevolent, would not choose to create such a system.

Then we can add that to our Garden Agreement List.
10: YHVH would have created "Lucy" just as surely as YHVH would have created "Adam".

If “Lucy” existed, then I agree.

Q: What in the story can we identify clearly as being YHVH teaching Adam the definitions of good and evil?

2:17. Eating of that tree would lead to death, the implication being that death is not a good thing. The other implication is that the trees YHVH said he could eat from was a good thing.

Q: Why should we think that YHVH wanted Adam to know any definitions of good and evil?

Because the Bible, including the Pentateuch, and even just Genesis talks about good and evil so much.

Therefore we could agree that animals in such a state are "Morally perfect"?

I think “amoral” is a better term, since morally perfect implies they always do morally good things, but they simply aren’t moral agents with moral expectations.

Re human's aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that beasts don’t.

Q: Is this to say that sin = "having rationality but not using it"?

No, it's not to say that.

Too vague. Would you like to add details?

I directly answered your question. When I claimed that humans aren’t beasts and that we have a rationality that they don’t, I wasn’t saying anything about whether having rationality but not using it is a sin.

If you are asking if I think "having rationality but not using it" is a sin, then I do.

If you are asking if I think sin should be defined as "having rationality but not using it," I would disagree because there are other kinds of sin as well.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #197]
Re The First Creation.
I have written a reply to you post Tanager, and have saved it as a draft for the time being as it occurs to me that until we can agree with the first creation story, we will continue to have difficulties in agreeing with The Garden Story [the second creation story].

Correct me as necessary, but from what I can gather, you think the two stories are different telling's of the one story.

I don't see that as being the case, so suggest that we focus on coming to an agreement of the first creation story, and once we have agreement, we can continue with our discussion on The Garden Story.

Agreed?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #198]

I think they focus on different things in a unified story, yes. What is your understanding of the differences and your reasons for seeing it that way?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #198]

Genesis 1:

Starting with life on Earth... [11] And YHVH said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

This signifies that the seed for such plants, was already on/in the Earth.

To me this say's that the Earth was constructed in that manner, to produce those things automatically as YHVH had programed it that way, and so that is how it happened.

In other words, the algorithms YHVH placed within the structure of the planet made it happen that way.

The same happens re the sea, as with the land. [20-21]

[22] tells us how YHVH installed the algorithm within the sea life. The 'let there be' is the initializing [set to the value or put in the condition appropriate to the start of an operation.] of the algorithm installed into the DNA of the critters, each of their 'kind' producing copies of their own kind.

[23-24] the process is repeated with land animals

[26-27] The process is repeated, this time with Mankind.

We gain some knowledge of what Mankind is in relation to both YHVH and the rest of the critters of earth [as well as plants] and that Mankind is a pairing of a distinct Male and Female animal, and like most other animals, in order to make copies [multiply], they have to mate, and like the other animals, this works from an algorithm [aka instinct] and where the algorithm differs is that there is also the addition of the instinct to subdue and rule over all the earth land and sea beasts, and plants.

[29] tells us that the food humans and other land animals are programed to eat, shall be the 'meat' of plants.

There is no mention of any animal being programed to eat one another, which stands in contradiction to what we know about what animals, including human beings, eat.

With this first creation story, there is no mention of YHVH making the humans alive, by instilling within them The Breath of YHVH, and no logical reason for us to assume that this must have been the case, as far as I can tell.

Thus, in the first creation story, we can couple that specifically with evolution theory, except that clearly human beings and all other animals were not programed to eat one another.

At this point, it is clear that the first creation story does not convey that animals ate animals, but that they had 'instructions' from YHVH on what they were created to eat - what would be their 'meat'.

But since we know that they do, and it appears that they always have done, there needs to be an explanation for why they were able to override their instinctual instructions and at that point, begin to eat one another.

Thus, the first creation story can only be read as something which happened prior to animals learning to eat one another, and the author gives no account of why this happened, but since the story is a written one, we can assume that the author knew at the time of writing that animals ate animals.

So we need to find out why YHVH inspired the author to write only about the initial state of creation and not explain what had occurred in the animal kingdom [sea-life included] in which the coding changed, that animals began eating one another.

That appears to be the only aspect which the first creation story omits, which makes it difficult to align said story with the evolution story.

All I can come up with by way of explanation is that YHVH changed the coding so that animals could eat each other and did so because it had something to do with YHVH's agenda.

In that, perhaps animals eating other animals somehow speed up the process, and also perhaps because Human Beings were wanderers, sometimes they wandered in areas where there was a scarcity of plant life, and this slowed them down.

These are just ideas which have some logic to them which could be considered.

But whatever the explanation might be, we know from the evidence, that YHVH did not inspire the author of the First Creation Story with any reasons for the change.

Also to note, death is not mentioned, nor is anything said to be forbidden
Thoughts?