"Walton" is John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College (IL), prolific writer of OT study resources. Ph.D. from Hebrew Union University in Cincinnati. I find him to be an extremely reliable biblical source.

> So Genesis says God made and named Adam

The view I take of Genesis is that it's about function, not structure. It's explaining to us that God took the universe that was there and assigned roles and functions to it. It's a much longer conversation to explain all of that, but it's about God investing things with purpose, not about him bringing the material universe into being. There are other parts of the Bible that tell us that God is indeed the creator of all things, but Gn. 1 is about assigning function, not creating the material universe.

> then made Eve out of Adam

The terms that are used in Genesis 2 are unfortunately, because they meant something different in the ancient world than they do to us, but the translators feel a responsibility to just translate them as they are. That can be both helpful and frustrating. For instance, God puts the man into a deep sleep. The word used here is often used of spiritual visions. What is most likely happening is not that Adam is snoring away, but that God is speaking to him in a vision to show him what is going on.

And the word "rib" is never used anatomically anywhere in the OT. It means a wing of a building, or the side of a room. It's used of the thing being built, not of the materials used in the construction.

What is most likely happening here is that God is assigning roles and functions to the man and woman, and he appears to the man to let him know that the woman is related to him (kinship) as an equal as as a partner (help-meet). She is just as much the image of God as he is (1.26), she is "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh), and that is why they leave dad and mom and become one flesh. God is showing the man how he should think about this counter-partner: the image of God, of kinship relationship to him, a counter-partner (help-meet), and his equal in every way. Adam wouldn't think that she came from his "rib"—the word refers to architecture. He names her "ishshah," (since he was called "ish", recognizing that equality and relationship. There's so much more to say, and so much evidence, but space and time are limited.

> If Genesis means "God made man[kind]", he wouldn't have named it Adam

"Adam" is the Hebrew word for "ground" or "land". In Genesis 1.26 it's plural, just as the word "God" is plural." In Gn. 1.27 you'll notice that it says God created "man" in his image as male and female. "Adam" means humanity.

> Thank you, this affirms my thinking that Jesus couldn't possibly have been human.

The NT is unanimous and unswerving on the teaching that Jesus was sinless. It is also concordant on the fact that Jesus was completely human (Heb. 2.14-18).

> the helicopter dropped a nuclear weapon

Um, I quite positive that you added an element to my analogy that so radically changed it that I can't buy into your version of it.

So Genesis says God made and named Adam, then made Eve out of Adam. I don't know what "Walton" is but I doubt it's a biblical source (which I ignore because it's not the word of God but instead of some person). If Genesis means "God made man[kind]", he wouldn't have named it Adam. I'd take it more seriosuly if he called it "Human" or something like "Created a being and named it man" to imply mankind. But, nope, very specific - one person, named Adam, whose rib he took (not from all mankind) to create another specific person, named Eve.

> First of all, the garden is a place for God to meet with the man and woman and communicate with them

So if God talked to 100% of humanity and had a relationship with them, it doesn't mean it's the same as God forming a personal relationship with all 7 billion people. Since there were only two people, it's not hard to have a personal relationship considering the numbers.

> The function of a priest was a be the one to meet with God.

This doesn't apply since God apparently talks with Adam in a more explicit way than you and I are chatting. There was also no heaven back then, was there? So Adam & Eve were already living the life and couldn't possibly get closer to God who just made them literally yesterday (at the time).

> While no human is capable of NOT sinning

Thank you, this affirms my thinking that Jesus couldn't possibly have been human.

> God has provided a way of escape so there is no judgment

I think you're talking about things that happened after the fall. That's not the timeline I'm talking about. As far as our discussion, we're in the garden, watching God, Adam, Eve, and maybe the snake.

> It shows up right away in the Cain and Abel story

We're talking about different people. This is after the fall where everything changed. I'm not talking about that timeline.

> If you die that day, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Actually, the preface to your story is that the helicopter dropped a nuclear weapon into the volcano that made it erupt. Although you'd still be somewhat responsible (I mean, this is a stretch - we don't see God like we see helicopters), the original source of evil is the helicopter that caused the volcano to erupt. Without the helicopter doing that, I'd be safe. I think this is the definition of extortion.

> You have to read the meaning also.

I can't, I'm only human. If I apply my faulty view on it, it'll corrupt and destroy the perfectly divine words right from the mouth of God.

> But he surely cannot created the possibility of moral evil and then at the same time prohibit its actuality.

We, mere mortals, can do this now. It's called - messing with peoples brains, where we have some free will and inability to do evil because we're too retarded to do it. If we can get closer to this idea, surely an omnipotent God can do anything. Or, simply, not make up the rules that would make that lava flow.

> Except that the olympian story and the Churchill story literally happened.

Please provide evidence for your opinion that the the Eden story didn't happen.

> You said the Eden story did not literally happen.

I said exactly the opposite. I said it was a historical event, but the primary purpose for it being there was archetypal.

> Or you could explain why it is that as soon as Adam and Eve made one mistake the Christian god terminated the relationship

God didn't terminate the relationship. They could no longer stay in the garden, but he didn't terminate the relationship by any means. He made garments for them (Gn. 3.21). Eve acknowledged the relationship in 4.1. The Lord was still involved in the lives of the Abel and Cain (Gn. 4.4), etc.

> IOW, you reserve the right to read into the story

I have read into the story at all. I've done careful exegesis and explained everything I've said.

> If God didn't send a snake...

First of all, there is nothing in the Bible that says God sent it. Secondly, I've explained that it was not a snake but a spiritual being.

I would be more than happy to discuss these things with you if you will kindly stop distorting every Scripture and twisting the words I say. Discussion can only be productive as it deals with what the Bible really says and you interact with what I have really said.

> We do it all the time. The story of an olympian becomes an archetype of overcoming overwhelming odds. The story of Winston Churchill becomes an archetype of "Never give up."

Except that the olympian story and the Churchill story literally happened. You said the Eden story did not literally happen.

> It wasn't a fictional role, any more than Churchill's leadership of England during WWI was a fictional role.

You said the Eden story was not literal. If it did not literally happen, it is fiction.

>You both misunderstand the nature of archetype and the plan of redemption that was immediately initiated. We can talk about that more if you wish.

Or you could explain why it is that as soon as Adam and Eve made one mistake the Christian god terminated the relationship

> Of course it's preferable to both have our eyes open and to be like God. the Bible confirms that repeatedly.

???By cursing us with sin and death????

> The point in the prohibition was one of timing and of attitude. The man and woman chose to do it in their own way, in their own timing, and to circumvent God and his will. That's where the problem was.

And that's why, as soon as Adam and Eve made one mistake. the Christian god terminated the relationship.

> There is no reason to assume that what is written for us in Gn. 2 is all that God ever said to Adam and Eve and comprises the sum total of everything they knew.

In other words, you reserve the right to read into the story to make your god look better.

> What is written for us is to explain the story of what happened, how, and why.

Except that it does not explain why the Christian sprung all of those additional punishments on Adam and Eve.
God didn't send a snake.

If God didn't send a snake then Adam and Eve were not humans. Because humans and snakes were cursed by the actions of the humans and a snake in Eden.

> How is a story with real people archetypal rather than historical?

We do it all the time. The story of an olympian becomes an archetype of overcoming overwhelming odds. The story of Winston Churchill becomes an archetype of "Never give up."

> What's the point of using historical people in a fictional role?

It wasn't a fictional role, any more than Churchill's leadership of England during WWI was a fictional role.

> Who said they were [dared to disobey]?

The person who asked the question said that.

> And as soon as they made one mistake the Christian god terminated the relationship

You both misunderstand the nature of archetype and the plan of redemption that was immediately initiated. We can talk about that more if you wish.

> So it is highly preferable to not have our eyes open or to be like God.

Of course it's preferable to both have our eyes open and to be like God. the Bible confirms that repeatedly. The point in the prohibition was one of timing and of attitude. The man and woman chose to do it in their own way, in their own timing, and to circumvent God and his will. That's where the problem was.

> Even though the choice was...

That's correct. There's a distinction between thinking for yourself and operating according to self. One is logical, and the other is rebellious.

> How were Adam and Eve supposed to make the logical leap

There is no reason to assume that what is written for us in Gn. 2 is all that God ever said to Adam and Eve and comprises the sum total of everything they knew. What is written for us is to explain the story of what happened, how, and why.

> god sent a snake

God didn't send a snake. I think you and I have had this conversation before. Check viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10137&p=11242&hilit=snake#p11242

> To me, the Eden story is archetypal (neither metaphorical nor literal). While Adam and Eve were historical beings

How is a story with real people archetypal rather than historical? Is it sort of like Abraham Lincoln appearing in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

>Adam & Eve are archetypes of the human race.

While also historical people. What's the point of using historical people in a fictional role?

> Adam & Eve (and therefore all humanity) were not dared to disobey.

Who said they were?

> They were invited to be priests and priestesses in God's temple (the earth) and to have a personal relationship with him.

And as soon as they made one mistake the Christian god terminated the relationship and cursed billions upon billions of people with a sinful nature and with death. That's mature.

> The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (though literal), was a symbol of their choice to relate to God on His own terms, or to choose to operate according to self.

So it is highly preferable to not have our eyes open or to be like God.

> The choice presented by the tree is not "Are you going to be a person who thinks for himself

Even though the choice was...
"to relate to God on His own terms, or to choose to operate according to self."
but rather "Are you going to act as if you made yourself

How were Adam and Eve supposed to make the logical leap from God made me to I can't arrive at any conclusions which contradict the mind of God? Moses, for example, had to talk the Christian god out of killing all of the Israelites. Moses was definitely not going along with the will of God in that case. Adam and Eve simply left out the negotiating phase.

>and you know how best to govern yourself, or are you going to act as if God made you and you refer to him as the one who knows you and loves you."

The Christian god know me and loves me. Ergo, anything he says must be correct. Why would Adam and Eve arrive at that conclusion after the Christian god sent a snake into the perfect Eden to tempt them? The Christian god himself introduced the competing message.

> It was not a matter of seeking knowledge forbidden to us. "The knowledge of good and evil" is a judicial idiom;

If that's all it was explain why Adam and Eve's eyes were opened and they became like God when they ate the fruit.

> humankind was being presented with a choice to judge the legitimacy of God's claim upon him as his creator and moral ground.

The fruit commandment was not presented as a moral law. It was presented as,
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden touch any of the furniture in the house; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil touch the hot stove, for when you eat from touch it you will certainly die burn your fingers.”

> We were certainly not created to be disobedient.

We are now. We are all born as children of wrath.

> The Bible explicitly tells the story of the first man - he's even named Adam and the first woman - specifically named Eve.

No it doesn't, not necessarily. The word "formed" in Gn. 2.7 doesn't not necessarily mean "manufacture." In Zech. 12.1, the Lord "forms" the human spirit within a person. Walton also illuminates, "2. In Egyptian reliefs where Khnum, the draftsman creator deity, is shown shaping a human on the potter’s wheel. The context of the relief and the text that accompany it, however, make it clear that it is not the material formation of the human that is conveyed, but the shaping of the pharaoh to be pharaoh. He is being designed for a role. The imagery pertains to the function he is destined to have, and not to the process by which he was created as a material individual."

> personal relationship citation?

Sure. First of all, the garden is a place for God to meet with the man and woman and communicate with them (Gn. 2.15-16; 3.8). Walton says, "The Garden of Eden is not viewed by the author simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary—a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the tabernacle (Ex. 25.33-35) or Jerusalem temple (1 Ki. 6.18, 29, 32; 7.20-26, 42, 47; Zech. 1.8-11; Ps. 74.3-7; 52.8; 92.13-15; Lam. 2.6; Isa. 60.13, 21). These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary. The presence of God was the key to the garden.

Also in Gn. 2.15, the words "work" and "take care of" are most frequently used in human service to God rather than descriptions of agricultural tasks. So is he working the ground, or is this sacred service? It is most likely that the tasks given to Adam are of a priestly nature—that is, caring for sacred space. In ancient thinking, caring for sacred space was a way of upholding creation. He is to preserve its holiness and its character. The function of a priest was a be the one to meet with God.

Walton (again) says, "When the archetypal man was taken and placed in the garden as a priestly representative, a couple of archetypal affirmations are being made. First and foremost, service in sacred space pertains most significantly to maintaining a relationship between God and people. The archetypal nature of humanity is found in the idea that we have not been created as slaves to meet the needs of the gods (ancient Near Eastern model) but that ultimately God wants to be in relationship with us as we dwell in his presence (sacred space)."

> This is called "love", right?

The point, as archetypes, is that they represent humanity in their rebellion against God. While no human is capable of NOT sinning, God has provided a way of escape so there is no judgment. No one gets punished for doing what we must do, or for not doing what we cannot do. But all of us are capable of choosing the redemption provided. That much is very clear in the Bible. It shows up right away in the Cain and Abel story in Gn. 4: Abel was able to choose the path of redemption, right from the very beginning. It shows up again in Gn. 4.26, in Gn. 6.9, Gn. 12.1-3 and on through time.

Would I forever curse my kid for one act of disobedience? Of course not, but that's not what's going on here. Suppose a volcano is erupting, and a helicopter comes to rescue you. You scream, "I'm not able to save myself!" The pilot says, "Get in. I'll fly you to safety." You yell, "But I'm incapable of getting away from the lava." He says, "Get in. I'll fly you to safety." You say, "This isn't fair that I have to die when I can't run faster than the flow!" He says, "Get in. I'll fly you to safety." You know what? If you die that day, you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is the story of the Bible. You are unable to save yourself, and so God has provided a way. You don't have to earn or deserve it. You don't have to be capable of anything, except to accept the free gift of the rescue. The plan was told to Adam & Eve immediately in Gn. 3.15, and repeated in Gn. 9, Gn. 12, and on and on. While you are incapable of not sinning, everyone has the capacity to make a choice to accept a free gift. It takes no special skill, intellect, ethnic heritage, religious bearing, gender, social status, economic privilege, or class. It's a simple matter of choosing to love God and accepting the redemption provided free of charge to you.

> Wow that should be a movie. All I read is...

That's because all you're reading is the words. You have to read the meaning also.

> Yes we were, it's called free will.

If God created creatures who were only able to be obedient, they'd be robots, not human. If God causally or otherwise determined them to do only what is right, then they are not doing what is right *freely*. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures with a legitimate capability of moral evil. But he surely cannot created the possibility of moral evil and then at the same time prohibit its actuality. As it turns out, some of the free creature God created exercised their freedom, and chose to do what is wrong. The fact that free creatures have the possibility of error in no way slurs God's omnipotence or his goodness. the only way to eliminate the possibility of moral evil is to also remove the possibility of moral good.

> They are not prototypes or metaphors, but representatives of all other members of the group.

I think you're reading this with 21st century hindsight. The Bible explicitly tells the story of the first man - he's even named Adam and the first woman - specifically named Eve. This is as opposed to the story that God created man and one of them was called Adam/Eve. Story goes on to say how these two people (and no other humans) worked in the garden.

> to have a personal relationship with him.

Do you have a citation for this?

> or are you going to act as if God made you and you refer to him as the one who knows you and loves you.

Are there parents who tell kids not to do something and when those kids wind up doing it, they get kicked out and forever cursed (not only them but all their descendants). This is called "love", right?

> To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.

Wow that should be a movie. All I read is a woman was convinced by a con artist to eat fruit, which she shared with her man. How about you call it for what it really is: people disobeying Gods wishes and even though God knew this would happen, he still went overboard and punished them injustly.

> We were certainly not created to be disobedient.

Yes we were, it's called free will. If God didn't want us to be disobedient, he'd make us like that.

> Please define "archetypal"

An archetype is a symbol, character type. or plot motif that has recurred throughout literature. In that sense it's an immemorial pattern. The Bible is one of the greatest repositories of archetypal writing in Western literature. Here we find that Adam and Eve are character types who represent humanity.

> Which would make the story a metaphor.

No. A metaphor is a figure of speech suggesting a resemblance. And while a metaphor can be symbolic, its primary function is to suggest a corresponding comparison: "You sly fox."

> Rocks are formed from "dust" yet are "immortal".

You miss the point. "Dust" is a metaphor for mortality. Gn. 3.19 makes that clear, as well as Ps. 103.14-16. The point of the text is that the nature of all humanity is that of finiteness—mortality. It's a feature that describes us all.

> Granted, your wording there is about as evasive as possible. ... Were they the first humans or not??

The text doesn't take a stand on that question. It doesn't say. It doesn't necessarily require that they are the first, but they also could be. Not trying to be oblique, but only saying what the text itself says.

In Gn. 2.15, it says "The Lord God took..." Took from where? it could easily be argued that he removed them form the everyday realm of human existence and put them in a specially prepared place to fill a special role, that of priest and priestess as archetypes of humanity.

> priests and priestesses in God's temple... Reference?

Sure. First of all, the garden is a place for God to meet with the man and woman and communicate with them (Gn. 2.15-16; 3.8). Walton says, "The Garden of Eden is not viewed by the author simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary—a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the tabernacle (Ex. 25.33-35) or Jerusalem temple (1 Ki. 6.18, 29, 32; 7.20-26, 42, 47; Zech. 1.8-11; Ps. 74.3-7; 52.8; 92.13-15; Lam. 2.6; Isa. 60.13, 21). These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary. The presence of God was the key to the garden.

Also in Gn. 2.15, the words "work" and "take care of" are most frequently used in human service to God rather than descriptions of agricultural tasks. So is he working the ground, or is this sacred service? It is most likely that the tasks given to Adam are of a priestly nature—that is, caring for sacred space. In ancient thinking, caring for sacred space was a way of upholding creation. He is to preserve its holiness and its character.

Walton (again) says, "When the archetypal man was taken and placed in the garden as a priestly representative, a couple of archetypal affirmations are being made. First and foremost, service in sacred space pertains most significantly to maintaining a relationship between God and people. The archetypal nature of humanity is found in the idea that we have not been created as slaves to meet the needs of the gods (ancient Near Eastern model) but that ultimately God wants to be in relationship with us as we dwell in his presence (sacred space)."

> it seems you have it backwards

The possibility of "being like God" was never put before them by the Lord, only by the serpent. The tree was presented to them as a prohibition, the indulging in which would doom them to die. Here the serpent claims it will make them "like God". The serpent taunts them with it, as if God is trying to deprive them of something desirable. But we know from the rest of the Scripture (not something Ad & Eve would know) that being like God is a good thing. He has qualities that he wants us to emulate. So if the tree isn't prohibited because it gives something bad to people, and if it isn't because god is just being mean, the most reasonable conclusion is that the prohibition pertains to timing. It's a probationary period—a test. The knowledge of good and evil will have value at the right time. What the serpent is holding out to Ad & Eve is a shortcut work-around.

> What??? The tree was a tree. It didn't present a choice.

The tree didn't actively present the choice; the tree was the focal point of the choice.

> they were described as being inherently amoral.

The text doesn't say this. Conversely, I would contend that they couldn't make the choice if they had no sense of morals.

> Only after the fact, as an unknown outcome.

They were explicitly told that on the day they ate it they would fall under a death sentence—they would be doomed to die. The outcome was known.

> Not truth. God lied to them.

Reference? Proof?

> God created them amoral.

Reference? Proof?

> To me, the Eden story is archetypal (neither metaphorical nor literal).

An archetype is type of symbol. You are misusing the word to apply it to an entire story, especially one that you deny is metaphorical. Please define "archetypal".

> the reason the story is told in Gn. 2-3 is to show us how Adam & Eve are archetypes of the human race.

Which would make the story a metaphor.

> The text is not addressing their material formation, but the forming of all humanity: we are all mortal (formed from "dust")

Rocks are formed from "dust" yet are "immortal". Indeed, Genesis specifically states we aren't mortal, because we didn't eat the fruit of life, despite having the opportunity to do so - it does not state it has anything to do with how we are made. And the story very clearly and specifically addresses "their material formation". Indeed, that is the entire subject of Genesis 2.

> and we are all gendered halves.

We are not clones, as described in Genesis. Further, animals that are not genedered are not described in the bible at all, such as in the flood story, so presumably it's because ancient man simply didn't know about heterogametic, gonochoristic, parthenogenic, etc., organisms.

> They are not prototypes or metaphors, but representatives of all other members of the group.

Yet you claim this to be specifically untrue, in that they are "not necessarily the first hominids". Granted, your wording there is about as evasive as possible.

> Adam & Eve (and therefore all humanity)

Were they the first humans or not??

> were not dared to disobey.

Of course not. They were told to not disobey, albeit through a lie.

> They were invited to be priests and priestesses in God's temple (the earth) and to have a personal relationship with him.

Reference? They had no "personal relationship" with him. God seems to have had no clue they were speaking to the serpent, ate the fruit, etc., nor did Eve speak to God about it until commanded to do so.

> The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (though literal), was a symbol of their choice to relate to God on His own terms, or to choose to operate according to self.

Not clear what you mean here. It seems you are suggesting that having a relationship with God and "operating according to self" are mutually exclusive. I tend to agree, however, it seems you have it backwards. They chose to be more like God, yet it was with the risk of dying... and therefore not "operate according to self". They were willing to give up their selves to be closer to God.

>the choice presented by the tree is not "Are you going to be a person who thinks for himself, or an empty-headed slave of God", but rather "Are you going to act as if you made yourself and you know how best to govern yourself, or are you going to act as if
God made you and you refer to him as the one who knows you and loves you."

What??? The tree was a tree. It didn't present a choice. It does not speak, and never directly addressed. It is only referred to.

> It was not a matter of seeking knowledge forbidden to us. "The knowledge of good and evil" is a judicial idiom; humankind was being presented with a choice to judge the legitimacy of God's claim upon him as his creator and moral ground

They were not judging the legitimacy of God's claim on a moral ground, as they were described as being inherently amoral. They literally couldn't. Rather they judged God's claim as a factual claim.

> To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.

Only after the fact, as an unknown outcome. God cutting ties was something imposed by God with no fore-warning.

> Eden was an invitation to life, truth, morality, and godlikeness through

Only "life". God offered the fruit of life, so that is true. However, not truth. God lied to them. Not morality. God created them amoral. Not godlikeness. The effect of eating the fruit of knowledge is specifically described as what made them like God.
the proper means to a desirable end.

Since supposedly none but life were granted in the Garden, except by way of the fruit of knowledge, the "proper means" must therefore be disobedience to God and the desirable end to be punished by God.