Explain the Fall

[Nemoralis]

Well the good news is, God doesn't expect us to understand, just to take Him at His word. But its reassuring that scripture written 4500 years ago come so close to predicting what science is just now finding out about genetics.

What a laugh! I think you've completely misunderstood the last few posts.

------------------------------------

To Calminian:

Maybe I haven't been perfectly clear, so let me say what I think again, in a different way. If you want me to go back and address all of the particular topics in your last post, I will.

Adam and Eve had no knowledge of Evil before they came into contact with it (whether it was by meeting the snake or by eating of the Tree). Many Christians believe that God wanted Adam to live in a world without Evil, and without its influences. The only thing Adam knew (according to the text) was that eating of the tree was wrong according to God. He'd never seen evil and hadn't eaten of the tree, so he was just taking God's word for it. Right so far?

When Adam met the snake (or Eve, whatever you'd like) that was his first contact with Evil. However, he still had no real knowledge of Evil. The only thing he knew was that God had told him it was wrong to eat of the Tree. Then the snake comes along and tells Adam that it's ok to eat the Tree, and that really God was just being selfish by forbidding him to eat of the Tree. How was Adam supposed to know that the snake was Evil? It seems like one would have to know that something is Evil before one can come to the conclusion that one thing is right and another is wrong. God had already told Adam that eating the Tree was wrong, but we don't know Adam's feelings on this or whether or not he agreed. Obviously, after eating the Tree Adam realized that the snake had decieved him. But he didn't realize this before, which is evidence by his realizing that he was naked.

What I'm saying is that God didn't get them a proper knowledge of Good and Evil beforehand. He told them not to eat of the fruit, but he didn't tell them it was wrong, and Adam doesn't say that he knows it's wrong. Even if God did tell Adam that it was wrong, it doesn't matter. To Adam, the snake could have been right and God could have been wrong. He's got God's word or the snake's word. How did he know which to pick? He knew that God had said that what the snake was telling him to do was wrong, but he didn't know that God was right.

Adam knew God told him to not eat of the ToK and agreed with God it was wrong (according to the Bible).

Can you please quote Adam agreeing that eating of the tree was wrong? He knew that God had told him to eat it, and (for the sake of this discussion) he knew that God had said it was wrong. I think you may be the one that is adding on to the Bible here.

Genealogies actually answer those questions. The connective Genealogies show that the earth is not that old and modern naturalistic assumptions about time, initial decay rates and origins are flawed.

So you think that random geneologies and the age of the earth are more important than questions about Creation? I don't. Silly ambiguities in the Bible such as this one are what make Atheists, such as myself, look at the Bible as 'just another Holy Book' or at Genesis as 'just another creation story'. Each of the thousands of other creation stories ALL have their own ambiguities and parts that don't add up. The only thing that would make the Bible stand out among those is if it didn't have these huge ambiguities. It could have some, sure. But this is a big deal.

I think I've said it better that time, but I'm not sure. I only just started thinking about this particular Genesis issue, so it took me a while to really formulate an opinion on it. Let me know what you think.

Nem

 

[Mystman]

For starters, it was written 4500 years ago that God breathed life into Adam and the life of his soul was in his blood. Turns out, genetically speaking, man's red blood cells are tiny breathing machines, taking oxygen in and discharging carbon dioxide. And unlike all the other type of living cells in the body, they don't have DNA in them and the ability to reproduce (its been squeezed out). Therefore RBC are not really living like the other cells, yet they're vital for life - a logical place where a soul's life might reside separate from worldly life. How would the original author make such a astute guess, unless the author was the creator of life Himself. Pretty astonishing to me.

God breathed life into Adam and the life of his soul was in his blood
This connection has already been refuted.

genetically speaking
What you're about to say doesn't have that much to do with genetics, more with fysiology.

man's red blood are tiny breathing machines, taking oxygen in and discharging carbon dioxide
Well yeah, but so are all the other cells humans have. You would be correct in saying that red blood cells are "better" at transporting oxygen/carbon-dioxide (since they have hemoglobin..), but hey

yet they're vital for life
well yeah. So are most of these.

a logical place where a soul's life might reside separate from worldly life
Yeah, totally logical.. mind explaining the logic?

 

[Dannager]

For starters, it was written 4500 years ago that God breathed life into Adam and the life of his soul was in his blood. Turns out, genetically speaking, man's red blood cells are tiny breathing machines, taking oxygen in and discharging carbon dioxide. And unlike all the other type of living cells in the body, they don't have DNA in them and the ability to reproduce (its been squeezed out). Therefore RBC are not really living like the other cells, yet they're vital for life - a logical place where a soul's life might reside separate from worldly life. How would the original author make such a astute guess, unless the author was the creator of life Himself. Pretty astonishing to me.

Or you're rationalizing a literary mechanic in terms of science so you can sleep at night. Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[awstar]

God breathed life into Adam and the life of his soul was in his blood
This connection has already been refuted.

genetically speaking
What you're about to say doesn't have that much to do with genetics, more with fysiology.

man's red blood are tiny breathing machines, taking oxygen in and discharging carbon dioxide
Well yeah, but so are all the other cells humans have. You would be correct in saying that red blood cells are "better" at transporting oxygen/carbon-dioxide (since they have hemoglobin..), but hey

yet they're vital for life
well yeah. So are most of these.

a logical place where a soul's life might reside separate from worldly life
Yeah, totally logical.. mind explaining the logic?

"fysiology" -- would this be a German word, or are you just putting me down?

Perhaps "logical" is not the appropriate term. What I intended was, if there was certain type of cell to place "life" -- whatever that was in Adam that he lost -- and then reestablish it again in Jesus - the Son of Man, then the red blood cells would be an ideal place to put it, because it wouldn't coexist with physical life -- i.e. the capacity for a cell to reproduce.

I'm not trying to win you over to my point of view with this discussion, only the word of God has the power to convince you of its truth. I'm just pointing out that the word of God as recorded in the Bible hangs together tighter and tighter the more science (the real kind) reveals how the world actually works.

For example, the discovery that DNA is composed of what equates to "words" written thousands of years ago which are expressed into "works" billions of times within a single persons body is an amazing parallel to how the Bible is expressed into God's glory by billions of believers who compose the Body of Christ.

Surely this impresses you!

 

[Mystman]

Surely this impresses you!

No it doesn't.

You're seeing parallels and connections where I am seeing none.

Anyway, sorry, the english word is physiology. Stupid f/ph.

 

[Dannager]

For example, the discovery that DNA is composed of what equates to "words" written thousands of years ago which are expressed into "works" billions of times within a single persons body is an amazing parallel to how the Bible is expressed into God's glory by billions of believers who compose the Body of Christ.

Surely this impresses you!

You're hunting for parallels where none exist. You'll need evidence, not conjecture, to persuade anyone here.

 

[Calminian]

Maybe I haven't been perfectly clear, so let me say what I think again, in a different way. If you want me to go back and address all of the particular topics in your last post, I will.

Actually I’d prefer to start over and focus on our disagreements.

Adam and Eve had no knowledge of Evil before they came into contact with it (whether it was by meeting the snake or by eating of the Tree).

It appears our confusion starts right here. I disagree with the above. Adam did have knowledge of the evil of eating of the ToK. This knowledge came to him directly from God. It wasn’t exhaustive knowledge, it just covered one issue. But it was knowledge of an evil that he was able to comprehend and understand.

When Adam met the snake (or Eve, whatever you'd like) that was his first contact with Evil.

That was his first contact with an evil being, which is irrelevant.

However, he still had no real knowledge of Evil. The only thing he knew was that God had told him it was wrong to eat of the Tree.

Again we are disagreeing. The fact that his knowledge of evil was limited to one command does not mean it was not real. Adam had real knowledge of a real sinful act.

Then the snake comes along and tells Adam that it's ok to eat the Tree, and that really God was just being selfish by forbidding him to eat of the Tree. How was Adam supposed to know that the snake was Evil? It seems like one would have to know that something is Evil before one can come to the conclusion that one thing is right and another is wrong.

Adam did know it was evil as you’ve already conceded. Whether he knew the snake was evil or not, is irrelevant.

God had already told Adam that eating the Tree was wrong, but we don't know Adam's feelings on this or whether or not he agreed.

If we’re talking about what the author of the story intended to convey, it’s clear Adam was knew he sinned. He had direct revelation from his creator. When confronted by God he offered no excuse of deception, unlike Eve. The prophet Hosea points out Adam as the covenant breaker with God, not Eve who ate of the fruit first. And the apostle Paul, who was well educated in the old testament said that Eve was deceived, while Adam sinned knowingly.

The question is, why are you speculating that author believed Adam sinned unknowingly? What evidence do you have?

Obviously, after eating the Tree Adam realized that the snake had deceived him.

Obviously??? The text implies just the opposite. It records God’s direct warning to Adam. Interestingly it does not record a direct warning to Eve. She probably heard second hand from Adam and perhaps doubted Adam's understanding of what God told him after hearing serpent make his case. But Adam heard directly. All the prophets, apostles, and theologians agree with me. Give me some reason to agree with you.

But he didn't realize this before, which is evidence by his realizing that he was naked.

You're simply missing the whole point of the story. He didn’t know nakedness was wrong prior, but clearly knew eating of the tree was wrong prior.

What I'm saying is that God didn't get them a proper knowledge of Good and Evil beforehand. He told them not to eat of the fruit, but he didn't tell them it was wrong, and Adam doesn't say that he knows it's wrong.

He commanded them not to eat of it and explained the consequences. Adam had the ToK and death explained to him. He had real knowledge of both. I have no idea how you could get anything else from the text.

Can you please quote Adam agreeing that eating of the tree was wrong? He knew that God had told him to eat it, and (for the sake of this discussion) he knew that God had said it was wrong. I think you may be the one that is adding on to the Bible here.

Can you quote Adam complaining he had inadequate knowledge? Eve claimed she was deceived, so why didn’t Adam? Since you are claiming Adam was deceived also, it’s up to you to show why you believe this.

1Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Add to this that both in the old and new testaments, Adam is blamed for breaking the covenant, not Eve.

So you think that random genealogies and the age of the earth are more important than questions about Creation?

I never said such a thing.

I don't. Silly ambiguities in the Bible such as this one are what make Atheists, such as myself, look at the Bible as 'just another Holy Book' or at Genesis as 'just another creation story'.

Fine but there’s nothing ambiguous about the genealogies.

Each of the thousands of other creation stories ALL have their own ambiguities and parts that don't add up.

So far your case against Genesis doesn’t add up.

The only thing that would make the Bible stand out among those is if it didn't have these huge ambiguities. It could have some, sure. But this is a big deal.

These ostensible ambiguities rely on a caricature of Adam and the ToK.

I think I've said it better that time, but I'm not sure. I only just started thinking about this particular Genesis issue, so it took me a while to really formulate an opinion on it. Let me know what you think.

I think it's an interesting objection built on some faulty foundations. You seem to be a careful thinker but I would suggest this supposed flaw in the original sin story has hit a dead end.

 

[awstar]

You're seeing parallels and connections where I am seeing none.

.

Well at least we can agree on this point.


Shalom, Mystman.

 

[Alchemist]

Hey Mystman,

I'm sure as a strong agnostic theistic evolutionist, this post is not directed at me, and my theology will be viewed as liberal by many. However, I felt like posting anyway, as I believe you raised some interesting points.

---note: this thing became way too long. Oh well, a lot of it is blank space though, reading it shouldn't take that much time

Many a longer post have I read. You are excused .

In short, many Christians claim that all "deficiencies" in human design are due to the Fall. Also, many Christians claim that all "bad" organisms were only designed/altered after the Fall. (as in, before the Fall, T-rex ate grapefruits, after the fall, T-rex ate his dino-buddies.) As a third point, many Christians believe that things like Cancer are only possible "because of" the Fall.

Indeed. So, to your questions...

1. Why exactly should the Fall cause diseases/carnivores/etc?

Well, it shouldn't. As I'm sure your common sense has already told you, a human eating an apple (even literally) does not make a lion decide gazelle would be tasty for dinner. And if God is indeed an all-powerful being, who is completely in control of nature (as the Bible says He is), then the sin of humans would not have any direct effect on the physical world; lions would only eat gazelles if God let them. And why would God suddenly decide lions should eat gazelles, just because humans sinned?

2. How does this reconcile with God's plan for the world; how does it reflect on God's personality?

Well, essentially there are two options, if indeed the physical world was different before the Fall:

1. The changes after the Fall were caused by God.
   
   God created the world exactly the way He wanted it, and then, in a random act of spontaneity, Himself changed the physical world completely.
2. The changes after the Fall were caused by man's sin.
   
   Adam's eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (it really wasn't an apple ) caused the physical world to be completely changed.

And really, both don't bode well for God's personality. The first scenario says that God created the world exactly how He liked it, then changed it completely to something He didn't like at all, a ridiculous proposition. The second is even more bizarre; God creates the world, then at the Fall completely loses control of it, with the effects of Adam's sin meaning T. rex will never taste another grapefruit again. However, directly after the Fall, God appears to regain control of the world, so that even when in a jealous rage Cain beats his brother to a bloody pulp, the physical world is completely unaffected...

Is God's personality as predicted by the Fall the same one as the personality that He's often claimed to have?

Well, if indeed the physical world completely changed at the Fall, then in any circumstance I don't believe this matches the personality Christians often assign to God (that of a loving creator) at all. But the fact is, the Fall was not about T. rex becoming a carnivore. It is about what we as humans become - i.e. rejecting God's plan.

But what is God's plan? Well, thats really rather simple. God created the world so that it would take care of itself. God created physical and chemical laws which dictate the universe, a delicate equilibria of chaos and order. And God created humans with the cognitive ability to perceive this world, and make concious decisions of how we were to interact with it. And then He gave us the choice: we could take care of His creation, nurture it, and glorify Him, or neglect His creation it, neglect God's purpose, and exploit the world for our own selfish purposes.

The Fall is simply us choosing the latter. It did not cause physical death. Death was God's plan; through death, comes the chance for new life, as evolution so poignantly demonstrates. But we fear death; we run from it, because death means we can no longer live our "own lives", doing what we want to do. But it caused spiritual death, emotional death. It caused us to lose our oneness with God and His creation, and abandon others in our fight to be "greater" than everyone else. No longer did we co-operate, but fought and killed for our own greed and power. No longer did we respect nature, but exploited it - and in upsetting its fine balance unleashed a whole new raft of problems on ourselves.

So yes, the Fall caused death. Yes, the Fall caused suffering and disease. But it was never God's plan. God just wants us to live our lives, showing (feeling!) love for Him, his creation, and other people - as a conscious action, as He consciously loves us. All the other elements of the universe work together as one. He just wants us to do the same.

Peace,
Nick

 

[Mystman]

Wow.

Somebody understood the question.


But anyway, I can follow your reasoning, with the exception of one little point.


Too bad that point is also your conclusion but hey

So yes, the Fall caused death. Yes, the Fall caused suffering and disease. But it was never God's plan. God just wants us to live our lives, showing (feeling!) love for Him, his creation, and other people - as a conscious action, as He consciously loves us. All the other elements of the universe work together as one. He just wants us to do the same.

(emphasis mine)


God, being all knowing, already knew the Fall was going to happen. Since He was certainly capable of altering the "parameters of creation" in such a way so that his "perfect creation" would've come to be.. why did He create the universe in a way that He knew was going to end in a non-perfect way?


A very simple way of removing this problem is just saying "God can't see into the future".


Actually, it's the only thing that I can think of that could remove this problem. (if you want some more clarification on what the problem is exactly, ask and I'll rephrase it a bit)

 

[Calminian]

So yes, the Fall caused death.

I understood this part here. You feel it only caused spiritual death (separation from God).

Yes, the Fall caused suffering and disease.

You lost me here. No disease before the fall?

 

[Alchemist]

Mystman,

I was just looking through my previous posts to realise I had not responded to yours! Please accept my apologies, and belated reply :o.

Wow.

Somebody understood the question.

Indeed, words are a difficult medium at times!

But anyway, I can follow your reasoning, with the exception of one little point... God, being all knowing, already knew the Fall was going to happen. Since He was certainly capable of altering the "parameters of creation" in such a way so that his "perfect creation" would've come to be.. why did He create the universe in a way that He knew was going to end in a non-perfect way?

A very simple way of removing this problem is just saying "God can't see into the future".

Indeed, but as you know, this would contradict the teaching that God is all-knowing .

So what is the answer? It really comes down to the whole relationship thing. Imagine you are a computer programmer. You decide to program a virtual world which you are able to interact with, and inside it you create animals, one species of which you want to have knowledge of, and love for, you. Now, being the coding master you are, you could just write the program so the species always loves you, no matter what you do. But is that really love? They aren't choosing to love you; there is no way anything else could happen! So that's not really a perfect program, though the species would love you 100% of the time.

Instead, you could create a system in which the species will choose to love you or hate you, based on a series of events; pick the right one, and they'll love you forever! But this isn't any different; the species love for you is entirely dependent on your your love for them, which if you are an all-loving programmer, would again cause nothing less than predictable results.

The only way to get the species to actually love you of their own volition is to give them the ability to choose, not based on your own desires, but on their own. You cannot force them to pick an option like a robot. You have to give them choice. And this inevitably leads to the possibility that those animals, however much you love them, will reject you, reject your plan, and choose something else. So really, this is the answer. God's plan was not that we would reject him. But obviously, part of his plan was that human beings were to have the opportunity to have a relationship with him; if not, he would never have put man into the Garden of Eden, given him the breath of life. This meant we had the ability to sin. This meant we had the ability to choose to reject God, which we did. But if we did not, then we would not have the ability to have a relationship with God.

So could not God have created a perfect world? Well, he did . But God's definition of "perfect" is not just about people acting nicely; it is about us having a relationship with God, and the choice to either follow or reject him out of our own volition. I would suggest, based on Genesis, anything less would not be a perfect to God at all...

Peace,
Nick

 

[Mystman]

Ahum, thanks for the late reply

I'm not entirely sure what this whole discussion was about (only read your post to be honest), but I guess it's something with the problem of evil/free will, etc..

The problem with your reasoning is this..

..the whole "loving or not loving creature X" has nothing to do with free will in many, many cases.

If every human was truly free to choose to love or hate god, then you would see an equal percentage of christians in every country. Instead, we see that "love for God" is highly centered in certain regions, and completely absent in others.

If a God really wanted to be loved, He shouldn't program all of His 'children' to automatically love him, I agree. And yes, letting people have the choice wether to love Him or not is great. But the thing is that the vast majority of non-christians don't "don't love" God, but instead simply don't believe that a 2000 year old book is the Word of the Lord of the Universe, and who as a consequence don't even believe He exists.

The correct way of doing things would be to actually announce His presence in a way that is understood by all humans (and no, replies like "but God already talks to everyone they just subconsciously deny him because they want to continue with their wicked selfish ways" don't count). That way, every human actually gets the chance of choosing wether they want to love God.

No idea if this actually was the subject.. but hey