Explain the Fall

[awstar]

lol

So tell me, who were Mary's ancestors?

Mary was the daughter ... of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God. (i.e. not an ape)

 

[Edx]

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God. (i.e. not an ape)

I thought Jesus was the son of god? I thought jesus WAS god? If we are the offspring of the son of God Adam, are we therefore also Gods? But then I thought Jesus meant to be Gods one and only son?

Ed

 

[awstar]

I thought Jesus was the son of god? I thought jesus WAS god? If we are the offspring of the son of God Adam, are we therefore also Gods? But then I thought Jesus meant to be Gods one and only son?

Ed

Jesus IS the Son of God. Jesus IS God. Adam WAS a son of God. But, Adam died spiritually, remember? But God gives us His spirit when we are born again. As Paul puts it:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. -- Romans 8:13-16

Jesus is the first born. Those born again, are His brothers. Jesus is Son of God, brother to those who believe in Him and have been born again with a new Spirit that is of God.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. -- Romans 8:28-30

 

[Dannager]

Who do suppose originally wrote those words which are coded into DNA and are expressed as human traits?

What words? If you mean actual DNA, then no one "wrote" them. They evolved naturally. If you mean literal words, whatever group of ancient linguists who decided to ascribe language to character traits. Either way, no one consciously altered DNA long ago to create these traits.

 

[Nemoralis]

Nemoralis, how can you say Adam had no knowledge of the wrongness of eating from the tree when the record clearly states God explained it to him?

In the piece you quoted, I said that Adam and Eve could not distinguish between Good and Evil properly because they didn't have experience with Evil, nor had they eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Please quote where God explained to them about Evil. Here's what (I think) he told them:

That there was a tree and they should not eat it
That they would die if they ate it

I'll concede a bit and say that Adam and Eve did indeed know that it was wrong to eat of the tree. However, they did NOT know that the snake was evil. When the snake came along and told her that eating of the tree was ok, how was she to understand that the snake was evil? For all she knew, the snake could have been more "right" than God. She had no experience - knoe knowledge of Good and Evil.

He did have the knowledge of this evil. That was the only knowledge he had in this area (as far as we know from the text).

No - you are adding things. The only thing we know for certain is that God told Adam not to eat of the tree. He didn't explain Good and Evil, he didn't warn about the snake, he didn't give Eve a way to recognize Evil.

The fact that Adam hadn't eaten from the tree yet did not mean he was incapable of comprehending issues of right and wrong, upon them being revealed to him.

We aren't talking about right and wrong anymore. Like I said, I'll concede and say that Adam knew it was wrong to eat of the tree for the purposes of this debate (even though I've made it clear that I think they go hand in hand). But Adam did not know how to recognize the difference between Good and Evil.

The key word in Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, is Knowledge. It's not the Tree of Understanding of Good and Evil (Oh man, I gotta patent that one! ).

Er...right. Like I've said, Adam and Eve didn't know about the snake. They couldn't recognize the snake as evil. They didn't have to completely understand anything, they just had to know about Evil.

Adam received knowledge of the wrongness of eating from the tree directly from God. Why would you believe this to be impossible?

Right. He understood that it was wrong to eat the fruit. But he still couldn't tell that the snake was Evil. For all he knew, the snake could have been wrong and God could have been right. I know it seems barbarous to you, but you can't assume anything. Just because God created Adam doesn't mean God is automatically benevolent and good.

Why not? It amazes me when people say this. I myself could have explained this to Adam, even if he had never seen a horror picture. How much better could God have done?

Again, I'll concede on this statement and assume that Adam had knowlegde of death. However, it's the snake's word against God's. How was Adam to know which word to take unless he had a prior knowledge of Good and Evil?

It seems like this debate is going nowhere. Calminian, if you believe that Adam and Eve did possess enough knowledge about Good and Evil to make a proper choice regarding the snake and God, then what was the point of the Tree? Wouldn't it have been better to give Adam all the knowledge about Good and Evil anyway?

Why do these questions even have to be asked? Why didn't God spend more time in Genesis trying to explain these huge questions about creation instead of filling his only written record with pages of 'who begat who'?

Loaded questions, I know. But it sounds like unless you can give a purpose for the Tree then we are going to get no where. We have two different opinions and neither can be verified. It's a poor Holy Book indeed that leaves huge questions like this one unanswered.

 

[Nemoralis]

Who do suppose originally wrote those words which are coded into DNA and are expressed as human traits?

On pre-life earth, certain molecules were subjected to conditions that caused them to act out their natural chemical inclination to form nucleotides. Does that count as "writing"?

 

[Mystman]

Mary was the daughter ... of Heli, the son of Matthat,
...blablabla...
...the son of Adam,

That's why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so He wouldn't inherit Adam's blood

?

 

[Calminian]

In the piece you quoted, I said that Adam and Eve could not distinguish between Good and Evil properly because they didn't have experience with Evil, nor had they eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Please quote where God explained to them about Evil. Here's what (I think) he told them:

That there was a tree and they should not eat it
That they would die if they ate it

It seems you are still imposing your ideas of Adam’s nature onto the story. You say that one must experience evil before they can understand it. This is almost like saying one must experience death before they can understand it, yet you concede Adam could understand death. Adam knew God created him and he knew God created the serpent. Adam knew God told him to not eat of the ToK and agreed with God it was wrong (according to the Bible).

I'll concede a bit and say that Adam and Eve did indeed know that it was wrong to eat of the tree.

Once you admit that your case crumbles.

However, they did NOT know that the snake was evil.

Irrelevant. You already admit Adam knew the act the snake was suggesting was wrong.

When the snake came along and told her that eating of the tree was ok, how was she to understand that the snake was evil?

Again Irrelevant. Their beliefs about the snake are not what got them in trouble. It was their disobedience to God’s command. From the rest of scripture we can discern that Adam knew his act was wrong. He sinned knowingly.

For all she knew, the snake could have been more "right" than God. She had no experience - knoe knowledge of Good and Evil.

There you go with the experience thing again. I don’t need to experience murder to know it’s wrong. If I don’t know of a rule, I can’t be blamed if I break it. Adam knew of this rule. He is accountable.

No - you are adding things. The only thing we know for certain is that God told Adam not to eat of the tree. He didn't explain Good and Evil,

Yes God did explain to them the good and evil regarding this matter. And according to the of scripture Adam understood what he was doing. Again you seem to have the idea that the ToK enabled comprehension, therefore Adam was unable to comprehend any matter of good and evil God explained to him. This is obviously not the case the bible makes. If you’d just drop this unbiblical view of Adam I think you could get this.

he didn't warn about the snake,

Whether He did or didn’t is not revealed and irrelevant. God told him it was wrong and Adam understood.

he didn't give Eve a way to recognize Evil.

Where are you getting this from? It’s not recorded whether or not Eve was directly warned by God. Since she got the story a little wrong some theologians believe she may have been told secondhand by Adam. Regardless, it’s completely Irrelevant. The issue was Adam’s sin, not Eve’s. According to the Bible, Adam recognized the evil of eating of the ToK. It’s only your own version of Adam that could not.

We aren't talking about right and wrong anymore. Like I said, I'll concede and say that Adam knew it was wrong to eat of the tree for the purposes of this debate (even though I've made it clear that I think they go hand in hand). But Adam did not know how to recognize the difference between Good and Evil.

I’m not making a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. You keep saying Adam couldn’t recognize the difference between good and evil before eating of the tree. On what basis do you make this claim? Now you’ve created a Tree of Recognition of Good and Evil. You are again imposing your own misconceptions onto the text.

Er...right. Like I've said, Adam and Eve didn't know about the snake. They couldn't recognize the snake as evil. They didn't have to completely understand anything, they just had to know about Evil.

If God would have explained to them the snake was evil they would have been able to understand this. Whether He did or didn’t is Irrelevant. He explained and Adam understood about the Tree. That’s all the knowledge of good and evil he needed.

Right. He understood that it was wrong to eat the fruit. But he still couldn't tell that the snake was Evil. For all he knew, the snake could have been wrong and God could have been right.

These two sentences contradict. If Adam knew eating of the tree was wrong, then he also knew the snake was wrong. If he didn't know if the snake was wrong he also didn't know if eating of the ToK was wrong.

I know it seems barbarous to you,

No just contradictory.

but you can't assume anything. Just because God created Adam doesn't mean God is automatically benevolent and good.

This is a different subject. How do you determine what is good? Do you even believe in the concept of objective good and evil? Isn’t it all relative in your world-view anyway? One could ask this same question today. Many indeed do.

Again, I'll concede on this statement and assume that Adam had knowledge of death. However, it's the snake's word against God's. How was Adam to know which word to take unless he had a prior knowledge of Good and Evil?

According to the Bible Adam knew he was sinning. According to the Bible he had prior knowledge. The fact that the tree contained knowledge of good and bad doesn’t mean God could not directly reveal certain knowledge of good and bad to Adam. Adam went against what he knew was true. The Bible implicitly and explicitly states this.

It seems like this debate is going nowhere.

Your objection is going nowhere.

Calminian, if you believe that Adam and Eve did possess enough knowledge about Good and Evil to make a proper choice regarding the snake and God, then what was the point of the Tree?

The purpose of the Tree was to give Adam a real choice to know all about good and evil. God had to give him knowledge of one command, to accomplish this. Otherwise Adam's choice to remain in union with God would not have been free.

Wouldn't it have been better to give Adam all the knowledge about Good and Evil anyway?

Only if Adam chose it for himself.

Why do these questions even have to be asked? Why didn't God spend more time in Genesis trying to explain these huge questions about creation instead of filling his only written record with pages of 'who begat who'?

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.

Loaded questions, I know. But it sounds like unless you can give a purpose for the Tree then we are going to get no where.

I tried to do this in a previous post but I’ll give it another shot. God wanted our relationship with Him to be a free choice. If God determines our response it is not free. If He gives us a choice and we determine be united with Him it is. If you ask a woman to marry you and implant a special computer chip into her that ensures she’ll say yes, is that really love? Wouldn’t you rather her have a real choice?

We have two different opinions and neither can be verified. It's a poor Holy Book indeed that leaves huge questions like this one unanswered.

It’s only a poor holy book when your own ideas of Adam and the ToK are imposed. Otherwise it makes a lot of sense.

 

[FreezBee]

God did take the blame when he came in the form of a man and died for us. God made us and he himself took the blame for our sins..

Ok, thank you for your answer!


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

Mary was the daughter ... of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
... STUFF DELETED ...
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God. (i.e. not an ape)

So, how do you know this?

According to

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
... STUFF DELETED ...
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

As you see, Luke claims that Joseph was the son of Heli, and you claim that Mary was the daughter of Heli - both of these are possible indeed, but how do I know that you are not telling us stories?


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[awstar]

?

Which chromosome -- X or Y -- provides the DNA information that is eventually expressed as the red blood cell of person? And which partner provides that differentiating chromosome?

I can't find a definitive answer but I suspect it's the Y.

 

[FreezBee]

So yeah, in short:

1. Why exactly should the Fall cause diseases/carnivores/etc? What exactly IS the Fall?
2. How does this reconcile with God's plan for the world; how does it reflect on God's personality?
3. Is God's personality as predicted by the Fall the same one as the personality that He's often claimed to have? (all knowing, all loving, etc)

Well, according to yuor profile icons you're an atheist, so what kind of answers would be acceptable to you?

First: one story:

See, in Gen 1 God creates the world and sees that it is good. So God does, what is good in his eyes.

God finalizes his creative work by creating humans in his own image. You're granted one guess as to, what humans will do. Yes, bingo, they'll do, what is good in their eyes.

The story of the fall tells us the sad, but inevitable outcome of that disposition. What is good in the eyes of humans is not necessarily what is good in the eyes of God.

As the snake says, when they eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve, our two starting humans, will come to know both good and evil. Until now they had only known God from his good side, but now they came to know God from his evil side.

So, what is there for you to learn from this story? That you should exercise some care, before you do, what is good in your own eyes. It may well turn out as evil against you!

- At one time, when I was a kid, I was out plucking blueberries. I sat down by a bush and stretched out my hand to pluck its berries. Then I heard a hissing sound. Looking down I saw a viper with its head raised. I pulled back my hand, stood up and left the bush.

Always listen to snakes, I say


Then: another story:

Being created in the image of God came to mean that only "perfect" humans were of God - of course God wasn't blind, lame or anything else. People that weren't the true image of God were unclean. This fall (as in decline) from the God-likeness was caused by the sin (transgression of God's commandments) committed by Adam and Eve, the original sin, from which all other sin is derived. Sin is parallel to un-cleanness.

But God is mercyful: he has devised a plan to restore the God-likeness of humans. Don't ask me 'bout the details, but Jesus Christ figures in somehow.

The pharisees used Mosaic Law to condemn people, those who were unclean according to the Law. Jesus turned it around. Without changing the letter of the Law (compare beginning of Sermon on the Mount), he reinterpreted it to mean that the cleanness (God-likeness) of those deemed unclean should be restored. The blind and the lame are unclean, but instead of comdemning the, Jesus healed them - made them clean in the eyes of God.

For this story I suppose some of the Christian members of CF can fill in the details.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Mystman]

Which chromosome -- X or Y -- provides the DNA information that is eventually expressed as the red blood cell of person? And which partner provides that differentiating chromosome?

I can't find a definitive answer but I suspect it's the Y.

As you might be aware, there are 24 human types of chromosomes.

You can't build a cell using the information from just the Y or the X chromosome, you need the information from the other chromosomes.

Take for example spherocytosis, a blood disease. It is caused by a defect in one of the proteins that make up the "skeleton" of the cell.. However, such a defect can be caused by mutations on various chromosomes. Thus, various chromosomes are involved with the correct functioning of the protein, and thus various chromosomes are involved with the correct functioning of the blood cell.

(I had to give such an "abstract" example since it is kinda "obvious" that your theory (that a red blood cell is regulated by just 1 chromosome) isn't the case. And it's sometimes hard to find a website that explicitly states the obvious..)

Oh, and females always give an X, males can give an X or an Y.

 

[Mystman]

...

Yep, that totally awnsered the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthocephala

 

[awstar]

As you might be aware, there are 24 human types of chromosomes.

You can't build a cell using the information from just the Y or the X chromosome, you need the information from the other chromosomes.

Take for example spherocytosis, a blood disease. It is caused by a defect in one of the proteins that make up the "skeleton" of the cell.. However, such a defect can be caused by mutations on various chromosomes. Thus, various chromosomes are involved with the correct functioning of the protein, and thus various chromosomes are involved with the correct functioning of the blood cell.

(I had to give such an "abstract" example since it is kinda "obvious" that your theory (that a red blood cell is regulated by just 1 chromosome) isn't the case. And it's sometimes hard to find a website that explicitly states the obvious..)

Oh, and females always give an X, males can give an X or an Y.

Not being trained in genetics, I'm on thin ice here, but it seems to me that because it is the Y chromosome that is needed to result in a male child, it would have been the Y chromosome that was provided by the Holy Spirit when Mary conceived. That piece of code provided by the Spirit would determine that child was of God and not of man, and (here's where I'm guessing) would have been the source of the multipotent stem cell that results in sinless progeny red blood cells required by God for a perfect sacrifice.

 

[Mystman]

Not being trained in genetics, I'm on thin ice here, but it seems to me that because it is the Y chromosome that is needed to result in a male child, it would have been the Y chromosome that was provided by the Holy Spirit when Mary conceived. That piece of code provided by the Spirit would determine that child was of God and not of man, and (here's where I'm guessing) would have been the source of the multipotent stem cell that results in sinless progeny red blood cells required by God for a perfect sacrifice.

Well yeah but..

as already noted, a single Y chromosome simply doesn't contain the information to build an entire blood cell

So it's a nice theory, but it just doesn't work

 

[awstar]

Well yeah but..

as already noted, a single Y chromosome simply doesn't contain the information to build an entire blood cell

So it's a nice theory, but it just doesn't work

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.

 

[Mystman]

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.

Uh, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[awstar]

Uh, how did you come to that conclusion?

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.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -- Genesis 2:7

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. -- Genesis 9:4

 

[Mystman]

..

You can take 2 seperate bible verses, and combine them to make them say anything.

Genesis 2:7 only implies that the writer knew that breathing was quite essential for life.

Genesis 9:4 only implies that the writer knew that blood was quite essential for animal life.

I don't see why these 2 verses should be combined. If they were meant to be combined, they would've been placed near each other, not with a few chapters between them.