Why did God create the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? In Genesis god tells man not to eat of either tree, but when man eats of the tree knowledge of good and evil, god says "behold, man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree life, and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22).
It's clear, according to the Bible, that the trees were not intended for mankind, so then who or what were they for (I realize this question may have no real answer, but it's more rhetorical than not.)? If the trees had another purpose then why put them within reach of man, and then wait until man ate of one to guard the other? If the purpose of the trees was intended for man, then why punish man for fulfilling that purpose?
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis
24 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by jimwalton » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:57 pm
It's not so that the trees were not intended for humankind. The tree of life definitely was. Let's walk through it.
The first thing to notice is a bit of a technicality, but still possibly important to this discussion. The trees were in Eden; the garden was east of Eden (Gn. 2.8); it adjoins Eden, because the waters flow from Eden and waters the garden (2.10). The garden is adjacent to Eden like the garden of a place is next to the place. It's part of the royal complex, but still, the garden and the palace are two different places. Eden (like the holiest part of the temple) is where God's presence is; the garden is where the trees are.
Secondly, the man and woman didn't live in the garden, but only met God there. God built a place where he could have a relationship with the people he made and loves, and where he could engage them and live in their midst.
The Garden of Eden was not necessarily a place of blissful enjoyment. That's the storybook version that the Bible never teaches. The humans are placed there to "work it and take care of it" (Gn. 2.15)—both of these are priestly terms, not agricultural ones. They came into the garden not to hoe and prune, but to meet with God and keep that sacred space holy. It's not farmland, but sanctuary; it's more sacred space than green space.
The Tree of Life, even though it is real, symbolizes what is only God's to give: He is the source of life, and it is found by remaining in his presence (Deut. 30.11-20). It wasn't the food of immortality. Their eating from the tree in the Garden, which they literally could do and did (the tree was intended for them, contrary to what you said), meant that they were enjoying the provision and life God had given them. God gives life. Life from him is necessary to enjoy all other gifts. They ate freely of it (v. 16). Despite their mortality, the tree of life offered them an antidote to their mortality—an extension of life (Gn. 3.22; Prov. 3.16-18; Rev. 22.2). Barring them from the tree of life (Gn. 3.24) ensured their death, as was promised if they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) was also real, and it also represents what is only God's to give: Wisdom, as the ability to discern order. In the ancient world, God was often associated with wisdom, and God was the giver of order (see how God ordered the cosmos in Gen. 1). The TKGE, for the man and woman, represented moral autonomy. What was forbidden to them was the power to decide their own morality, making humanity the center of what was in his best interests, and being able to set the standard for right and wrong. This was not a decision God had delegated to them. God alone was the source of wisdom, and discernment of good and bad didn't stem from popular vote (what man thought was best) but God's nature (true wisdom). It's not that God was trying to keep them ignorant or blind to the truth, but that only as humans stayed in a dependent relationship with God and followed his person and ways would they stay on the path of truth. But free will that is restricted to choose only the good isn't free will at all. Humans had to decide for themselves if they were going to follow their own false wisdom or God's true wisdom. And God warned them that if they turned away from him to follow their own rebellious path, he could not let them live forever in that state (they would surely die). The tree represents their ability to decide.
From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.
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."
Since "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. To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.
The first thing to notice is a bit of a technicality, but still possibly important to this discussion. The trees were in Eden; the garden was east of Eden (Gn. 2.8); it adjoins Eden, because the waters flow from Eden and waters the garden (2.10). The garden is adjacent to Eden like the garden of a place is next to the place. It's part of the royal complex, but still, the garden and the palace are two different places. Eden (like the holiest part of the temple) is where God's presence is; the garden is where the trees are.
Secondly, the man and woman didn't live in the garden, but only met God there. God built a place where he could have a relationship with the people he made and loves, and where he could engage them and live in their midst.
The Garden of Eden was not necessarily a place of blissful enjoyment. That's the storybook version that the Bible never teaches. The humans are placed there to "work it and take care of it" (Gn. 2.15)—both of these are priestly terms, not agricultural ones. They came into the garden not to hoe and prune, but to meet with God and keep that sacred space holy. It's not farmland, but sanctuary; it's more sacred space than green space.
The Tree of Life, even though it is real, symbolizes what is only God's to give: He is the source of life, and it is found by remaining in his presence (Deut. 30.11-20). It wasn't the food of immortality. Their eating from the tree in the Garden, which they literally could do and did (the tree was intended for them, contrary to what you said), meant that they were enjoying the provision and life God had given them. God gives life. Life from him is necessary to enjoy all other gifts. They ate freely of it (v. 16). Despite their mortality, the tree of life offered them an antidote to their mortality—an extension of life (Gn. 3.22; Prov. 3.16-18; Rev. 22.2). Barring them from the tree of life (Gn. 3.24) ensured their death, as was promised if they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) was also real, and it also represents what is only God's to give: Wisdom, as the ability to discern order. In the ancient world, God was often associated with wisdom, and God was the giver of order (see how God ordered the cosmos in Gen. 1). The TKGE, for the man and woman, represented moral autonomy. What was forbidden to them was the power to decide their own morality, making humanity the center of what was in his best interests, and being able to set the standard for right and wrong. This was not a decision God had delegated to them. God alone was the source of wisdom, and discernment of good and bad didn't stem from popular vote (what man thought was best) but God's nature (true wisdom). It's not that God was trying to keep them ignorant or blind to the truth, but that only as humans stayed in a dependent relationship with God and followed his person and ways would they stay on the path of truth. But free will that is restricted to choose only the good isn't free will at all. Humans had to decide for themselves if they were going to follow their own false wisdom or God's true wisdom. And God warned them that if they turned away from him to follow their own rebellious path, he could not let them live forever in that state (they would surely die). The tree represents their ability to decide.
From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.
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."
Since "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. To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by Tebpla » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:22 pm
Genesis 2:8 says the garden was to the east in Eden rather than to the east of Eden; 2:10 is confusing because it says the river flows out of Eden to water the garden. But like you said it's just a technicality so w/e.
But I think you should read the verse between 2:8 and 2:10. Genesis 2:9 says god created all the trees in the garden and the two trees in question were in the midst of the garden Eve later tells the serpent in Genesis 3:3, that god said not to eat from, or even touch the tree in the midst of the garden
Maybe my interpretation is different than yours, and that's fine, but you brought up another point I'd like to address.
> From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God.
If god created us in his image, and gave us free will expecting us to use it, why then would he expect us to use it any differently than he does?
Is god not self-oriented? Are we supposed to believe that a being who requires worship and/or obedience; and if it does not receive these things he will sentence his creations to eternal damnation, that being is selfless? A being that creates arbitrary rules and regulations because the outcomes are "pleasing" to him, is not self-oriented? A being who wipes out entire cities and civilizations, just for the benefit of "his favorite little desert tribe", that's not self-oriented?
God is either powerless to see the outcome of certain events, a fool to expect more of man than he would of himself, or evil to rig the system in a way that gives him what he wants; or maybe he just doesn't exist.
But I think you should read the verse between 2:8 and 2:10. Genesis 2:9 says god created all the trees in the garden and the two trees in question were in the midst of the garden Eve later tells the serpent in Genesis 3:3, that god said not to eat from, or even touch the tree in the midst of the garden
Maybe my interpretation is different than yours, and that's fine, but you brought up another point I'd like to address.
> From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God.
If god created us in his image, and gave us free will expecting us to use it, why then would he expect us to use it any differently than he does?
Is god not self-oriented? Are we supposed to believe that a being who requires worship and/or obedience; and if it does not receive these things he will sentence his creations to eternal damnation, that being is selfless? A being that creates arbitrary rules and regulations because the outcomes are "pleasing" to him, is not self-oriented? A being who wipes out entire cities and civilizations, just for the benefit of "his favorite little desert tribe", that's not self-oriented?
God is either powerless to see the outcome of certain events, a fool to expect more of man than he would of himself, or evil to rig the system in a way that gives him what he wants; or maybe he just doesn't exist.
- Tebpla
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by jimwalton » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:36 pm
Genesis 2.8-10. The Hebrew can be translated in different ways, and various translations reflect some of those possibilities. *Eden* appears 13 ties in the OT in the singular, and 3 times in the plural. Three references in Genesis specifically distinguish between the garden and Eden, other references conjoin them. Contextually, since the waters are flowing from Eden to the garden, it seems from the context that the two are adjacent, though at other times their proximity is so close that they are regarded as one. It depends what the point of the author is in which place whether he regards them as one complex or two adjacent sites. It's a technicality mostly unworthy of trying to sort out.
But on to the free will part of the discussion. You asked, "If god created us in his image, and gave us free will expecting us to use it. Why then would he expect us to use it any differently than he does?" It's precisely the point that He fully wants us to use our free will the way He does; he wants us to use our free will to remain in conformity to His character. What he can't do is force us to use our free will to choose the right (it's an oxymoron to have forced free will).
Is God self-oriented? Now you've changed the subject completely. Was your "Trees" question just a set-up? But to answer your question, yes, God is self-oriented, and for a good and justifiable reason. He is truth. He is the objective standard of morality. He is the source of life and order. Without Him, there is no universe because He holds it all together. His self-orientation is warranted—a beneficial monopoly, we might say.
"And if He doesn't received those things he will sentence his creations to eternal damnation." You don't seem to have thought this through. God is life. If you separate from God, you choose non-life, or death. God is truth. If you separate from God, you choose deceit and wrong. God isn't self-centered or egotistical when he demands worship. He knows that is your only path to life.
To me worship is a recognition of who God is and a response to what he has done. My personal definition of worship is recognizing and rehearsing all of who God is, and giving all of myself to him.
Let me try to put it this way. Your mom isn't demonic when she insists that you obey her and respect her. She knows that obedience and respect are pretty important parts of getting by in life, and they are not only appropriate behavior but also worthy character traits. Besides (in the case of most moms), she deserves it. She loves you, works hard for you, and cares about you.
But when God demands your praise, respect, love, and obedience, you wonder why he requires it, and you think he's just full of himself. Not so. In the same way as in the previous example, He loves you, works hard for you, and cares about you.
But let's add to that. You're a toddler and ready to cross a busy street. Your mom screams like crazy, runs to you as fast as she can, grabs you roughly by the arm, and reams you up and down the wall to never do that again, and how you have to listen to her and obey her—she basically blows you away. It's because she knows the real danger of disobedience. You cross that street, you're dead meat.
God knows the danger of disobedience. He's no rock star seeking adulation, but he knows the forces against you and how destructive they are. He knows that if you go any direction other than his you will be ruined and destroyed, and severely so. Acknowledgement of the truth in Him is the only path to life and meaning, and He knows it. His call for worship is the only way you will ever find what life is really for and about, and how to be spared from the awful things that threaten you.
So why do I think God needs to be worshipped?
First, God needs to be worshipped because he is Holy (completely Other), majestic, all-powerful, spectacular, awesome, perfect, eternal, love, just, all-knowing, and as such, is worthy of a small creature such as myself recognizing the Greatness in whose presence I live.
Second, God needs to be worshipped because he has acted sacrificially on my behalf to save me from my sin, at great expense to himself, as an act of love. The magnitude of what he has done for me evokes a profound sense of gratitude, respect, love, worship, and obedience.
Third, because of the relationship I am privileged to have with God, I recognize that every thought I have, every attitude of my heart, and every action I do is essentially an act of worship: recognizing and rehearsing all of who God is, and giving all of myself to him. Why does God need that? That part is what I need. It's only right, given who he is and what he has done.
> A being that creates arbitrary rules and regulations because the outcomes are "pleasing" to him
You've missed the whole point. There is nothing arbitrary about them, and it's not just so that the outcomes are pleasing to him. He knows the consequences of every other path. And so he pleads with you, "Follow my way." It's not that he's being evil for condemning you. You are condemning yourself (John 3.18).
> A being who wipes out entire cities and civilizations, just for the benefit of "his favorite little desert tribe", that's not self-oriented?
My goodness, now we've really veered off subject. Maybe you should have asked your real question instead of the Tree one. With this question, are you talking about the conquest under Joshua? If that's your angle, you have a pretty serious misunderstanding of the conquest. We can talk about it if you want, but there isn't enough room left in this post to tackle it. But, no, it wasn't self-centered at all. If you're talking about Joshua and the conquest, no, it wasn't genocide, and there wasn't anything self-oriented about it. Again, it's a different conversation, but I sense some serious hostility and anger coming out of you.
> God is either powerless to see the outcome of certain events, a fool to expect more of man than he would of himself, or evil to rig the system in a way that gives him what he wants; or maybe he just doesn't exist.
Oh, wow, this is yet another direction. Where are we going with this conversation? God is omniscience, so not powerless to see the outcome of certain events. "A fool to expect more of man than he would of himself"—I'm not even sure what you mean by this vitriol. "Evil to rig the system in a way that gives him what he wants?" Yeesh. What in the world? He has rigged anything. That's why the world is such a mess (and you certainly can't convince me that the world isn't churning right now). If he had rigged things, we're talking a whole different reality than what we see. Instead we see the consequences of human free will and the disaster we have made of far too many things. "Or maybe he just doesn't exist?" Sigh. If this is your real question, we should have talked about this.
But on to the free will part of the discussion. You asked, "If god created us in his image, and gave us free will expecting us to use it. Why then would he expect us to use it any differently than he does?" It's precisely the point that He fully wants us to use our free will the way He does; he wants us to use our free will to remain in conformity to His character. What he can't do is force us to use our free will to choose the right (it's an oxymoron to have forced free will).
Is God self-oriented? Now you've changed the subject completely. Was your "Trees" question just a set-up? But to answer your question, yes, God is self-oriented, and for a good and justifiable reason. He is truth. He is the objective standard of morality. He is the source of life and order. Without Him, there is no universe because He holds it all together. His self-orientation is warranted—a beneficial monopoly, we might say.
"And if He doesn't received those things he will sentence his creations to eternal damnation." You don't seem to have thought this through. God is life. If you separate from God, you choose non-life, or death. God is truth. If you separate from God, you choose deceit and wrong. God isn't self-centered or egotistical when he demands worship. He knows that is your only path to life.
To me worship is a recognition of who God is and a response to what he has done. My personal definition of worship is recognizing and rehearsing all of who God is, and giving all of myself to him.
Let me try to put it this way. Your mom isn't demonic when she insists that you obey her and respect her. She knows that obedience and respect are pretty important parts of getting by in life, and they are not only appropriate behavior but also worthy character traits. Besides (in the case of most moms), she deserves it. She loves you, works hard for you, and cares about you.
But when God demands your praise, respect, love, and obedience, you wonder why he requires it, and you think he's just full of himself. Not so. In the same way as in the previous example, He loves you, works hard for you, and cares about you.
But let's add to that. You're a toddler and ready to cross a busy street. Your mom screams like crazy, runs to you as fast as she can, grabs you roughly by the arm, and reams you up and down the wall to never do that again, and how you have to listen to her and obey her—she basically blows you away. It's because she knows the real danger of disobedience. You cross that street, you're dead meat.
God knows the danger of disobedience. He's no rock star seeking adulation, but he knows the forces against you and how destructive they are. He knows that if you go any direction other than his you will be ruined and destroyed, and severely so. Acknowledgement of the truth in Him is the only path to life and meaning, and He knows it. His call for worship is the only way you will ever find what life is really for and about, and how to be spared from the awful things that threaten you.
So why do I think God needs to be worshipped?
First, God needs to be worshipped because he is Holy (completely Other), majestic, all-powerful, spectacular, awesome, perfect, eternal, love, just, all-knowing, and as such, is worthy of a small creature such as myself recognizing the Greatness in whose presence I live.
Second, God needs to be worshipped because he has acted sacrificially on my behalf to save me from my sin, at great expense to himself, as an act of love. The magnitude of what he has done for me evokes a profound sense of gratitude, respect, love, worship, and obedience.
Third, because of the relationship I am privileged to have with God, I recognize that every thought I have, every attitude of my heart, and every action I do is essentially an act of worship: recognizing and rehearsing all of who God is, and giving all of myself to him. Why does God need that? That part is what I need. It's only right, given who he is and what he has done.
> A being that creates arbitrary rules and regulations because the outcomes are "pleasing" to him
You've missed the whole point. There is nothing arbitrary about them, and it's not just so that the outcomes are pleasing to him. He knows the consequences of every other path. And so he pleads with you, "Follow my way." It's not that he's being evil for condemning you. You are condemning yourself (John 3.18).
> A being who wipes out entire cities and civilizations, just for the benefit of "his favorite little desert tribe", that's not self-oriented?
My goodness, now we've really veered off subject. Maybe you should have asked your real question instead of the Tree one. With this question, are you talking about the conquest under Joshua? If that's your angle, you have a pretty serious misunderstanding of the conquest. We can talk about it if you want, but there isn't enough room left in this post to tackle it. But, no, it wasn't self-centered at all. If you're talking about Joshua and the conquest, no, it wasn't genocide, and there wasn't anything self-oriented about it. Again, it's a different conversation, but I sense some serious hostility and anger coming out of you.
> God is either powerless to see the outcome of certain events, a fool to expect more of man than he would of himself, or evil to rig the system in a way that gives him what he wants; or maybe he just doesn't exist.
Oh, wow, this is yet another direction. Where are we going with this conversation? God is omniscience, so not powerless to see the outcome of certain events. "A fool to expect more of man than he would of himself"—I'm not even sure what you mean by this vitriol. "Evil to rig the system in a way that gives him what he wants?" Yeesh. What in the world? He has rigged anything. That's why the world is such a mess (and you certainly can't convince me that the world isn't churning right now). If he had rigged things, we're talking a whole different reality than what we see. Instead we see the consequences of human free will and the disaster we have made of far too many things. "Or maybe he just doesn't exist?" Sigh. If this is your real question, we should have talked about this.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by Anticipation » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:35 am
> That's the storybook version that the Bible never teaches.
Do you have some other story of Adam, Eve and Eden? If not, where do you come by this knowledge, if not the Bible?
Do you have some other story of Adam, Eve and Eden? If not, where do you come by this knowledge, if not the Bible?
- Anticipation
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by jimwalton » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:45 am
Oh, we only have our information about this from the Bible. They story I relate is the biblical one, not the children's storybook one. The Bible makes no mention of any kind of Paradise or blissful enjoyment in Eden. If we choose to get our knowledge fro the Bible, then we must get our information from the Bible (which seems rather straightforward).
We first hear of Eden in Gn. 2.9, which tells us only that it was a beautiful place with good food. Nothing about blissful paradise. 2.10-14 tells us about 4 rivers and precious gems and metals, but nothing about what kind of existence the people had. Genesis 2.15 tells us that the humans had priestly responsibility (the terms "work it and take care of it" are priestly terms, not agricultural ones). And then there was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, representing their moral choice every day in the garden. So where do we get this other story about blissful paradise? Not from the Bible, but only from children's books.
The points of the text are:
1. God gave people responsibilities (roles and functions)
2. God gave people boundaries (they were not free to contrive their own morality).
3. God provided for people. He granted them a place that would be sufficient to sustain them.
4. God trained people in spirituality and morality. Their lives contained choices that mattered.
5. God cares about obedience as necessary to survival
6. God cares about justice, and warned them about the consequences of disobedience.
There is nothing about paradise. Gardens in the ancient world were the dwelling place of the gods—sanctuaries of their presence. That's the point of Eden here in Genesis 2.
We first hear of Eden in Gn. 2.9, which tells us only that it was a beautiful place with good food. Nothing about blissful paradise. 2.10-14 tells us about 4 rivers and precious gems and metals, but nothing about what kind of existence the people had. Genesis 2.15 tells us that the humans had priestly responsibility (the terms "work it and take care of it" are priestly terms, not agricultural ones). And then there was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, representing their moral choice every day in the garden. So where do we get this other story about blissful paradise? Not from the Bible, but only from children's books.
The points of the text are:
1. God gave people responsibilities (roles and functions)
2. God gave people boundaries (they were not free to contrive their own morality).
3. God provided for people. He granted them a place that would be sufficient to sustain them.
4. God trained people in spirituality and morality. Their lives contained choices that mattered.
5. God cares about obedience as necessary to survival
6. God cares about justice, and warned them about the consequences of disobedience.
There is nothing about paradise. Gardens in the ancient world were the dwelling place of the gods—sanctuaries of their presence. That's the point of Eden here in Genesis 2.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by Tebpla » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:00 am
I think you missed my point in regards to god being self centered. My bad for not making it clear.
My point was that if god is self-centered, and if man was created in the image of god; then it follows that man, created in the image of a self-centered being, would also be self-centered.
With worship, in my opinion any being who expects/requires worship doesn't deserve it. And expecting or requiring the worship cheapens its value anyways.
> he has acted sacrificially on my behalf to save me from my sin, at great expense to himself, as an act of love.
How was it at all sacrificial?
> You've missed the whole point. There is nothing arbitrary about them, and it's not just so that the outcomes are pleasing to him.
What about: burnt offerings(the odor is pleasing to the lord), not mixing clothing, not boiling a kid in its mothers milk, eating unleavened bread, and only sacrificing animals without defects..etc, isn't arbitrary?
The part about genocide was to point out all the tribes in the OT that god ordered the Israelites to decimate.
> God is omniscient
Then he saw what would happen, and still let the events play out anyway. If you're all powerful, but you don't use your power to influence things, you may as well be powerless.
My point was that if god is self-centered, and if man was created in the image of god; then it follows that man, created in the image of a self-centered being, would also be self-centered.
With worship, in my opinion any being who expects/requires worship doesn't deserve it. And expecting or requiring the worship cheapens its value anyways.
> he has acted sacrificially on my behalf to save me from my sin, at great expense to himself, as an act of love.
How was it at all sacrificial?
> You've missed the whole point. There is nothing arbitrary about them, and it's not just so that the outcomes are pleasing to him.
What about: burnt offerings(the odor is pleasing to the lord), not mixing clothing, not boiling a kid in its mothers milk, eating unleavened bread, and only sacrificing animals without defects..etc, isn't arbitrary?
The part about genocide was to point out all the tribes in the OT that god ordered the Israelites to decimate.
> God is omniscient
Then he saw what would happen, and still let the events play out anyway. If you're all powerful, but you don't use your power to influence things, you may as well be powerless.
- Tebpla
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by jimwalton » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:33 am
OK, I see numerous points of confusion here. I'll try to take them one at a time.
> My point was that if god is self centered, and if man was created in the image of god; then it follows that man, created in the image of a self centered being, would also be self centered.
You are inaccurately interpreting what "made in the image of God" means. We have to let the text define it for us. The text explains that humankind was made in God's image in the sense that they were given dominion over creation: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over..." (Gn. 1.26). Then in 1.27 God created humankind in his image, and then in 1.28 they were to rule and subdue. this is also confirmed in Psalm 8.5-8. God's image in man doesn't consist in his physical appearance, his behavioral patterns, or any self-orientation (as you have suggested).
> How was it at all sacrificial?
Are you familiar with what happened in the flogging and crucifixion of Jesus?
> What about: burnt offerings(the odor is pleasing to the lord), not mixing clothing, not boiling a kid in its mothers milk, eating unleavened bread, and only sacrificing animals without defects..etc, isn't arbitrary?
Not arbitrary at all. There is important symbolism and spiritual import behind each of these commands. Briefly speaking...
- Burnt offerings: A purging by fire of sin so that humans could approach God. It was both an appeasing and an act of dedication. I can't write it all here; we have to talk about it separately if you want to know more.
- Mixing fabrics: a symbol of mixing or coupling things of different natures. It was a perpetual reminder that that people of God were not to compromise themselves with pagan cultures and ways. See also 2 Cor. 6.14ff.
- Boiling a kid in its mother's milk: They were not to practice religion like the pagans. They were different. Boiling sacrificial kids in their mother's milk was a common ritual practice of the Canaanites. With the Canaanites this was also a magic spell, connected with fertility magic, and the Israelites were to eschew all such nonsense. In addition, the Israelite religious system was all about life, and the separation of life forces and death forces. A mother's milk was life-sustaining force, but boiling meat was a death thing. The two were not to be mixed, confused, or associated with each other.
- Unleavened bread. Most of the time the Israelites ate and enjoyed unleavened bread. It was only in certain festivals that yeast (because of its permeating character) was used as a symbol of sin and therefore forbidden during that time of reflection and rededication.
- Sacrificing animals without defect. A vivid picture of the later sinlessness of Christ. It was also a symbol that they shouldn't give God their rejects, but instead offer him their best.
> The part about genocide was to point out all the tribes in the OT that god ordered the Israelites to decimate.
The "decimation" language of the ancient world was not a literal expectation, but rhetorical warfare language. Many examples from the ancient world have been dug up by archaeologists. It was their language of victory, not an expectation of genocide. The intent of the Israelites was to drive the Canaanites out of the land (Ex. 23.28-31; 33.2; 34.11, 24, etc etc.), not kill them all. There was only battle is the Canaanites refused to surrender and refused to leave (Dt. 20.10-15). The "kill them all" language in their culture meant "win a decisive and complete victory." Have you ever seen a sign in front of a grocery store that says "No Standing"? It doesn't mean "no standing," though that's what it says in clear English. **WE** know it pertains to parking your car there, not to people standing there. These are cultural things that one must understand the culture to know. So also the warfare rhetoric. We use the same kind of rhetoric in sports: "Kill 'em. Take them apart. Decimate them."
> Then he saw what would happen, and still let the events play out anyway. If you're all powerful, but you don't use your power to influence things, you may as well be powerless.
You are confusing omniscience and omnipotence. Knowledge is not causative. Just because I know you're going to get a burger doesn't mean I made you do it. Knowledge can't make anybody do anything, no matter how much they know. Knowledge has no causal force in another person.
> My point was that if god is self centered, and if man was created in the image of god; then it follows that man, created in the image of a self centered being, would also be self centered.
You are inaccurately interpreting what "made in the image of God" means. We have to let the text define it for us. The text explains that humankind was made in God's image in the sense that they were given dominion over creation: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over..." (Gn. 1.26). Then in 1.27 God created humankind in his image, and then in 1.28 they were to rule and subdue. this is also confirmed in Psalm 8.5-8. God's image in man doesn't consist in his physical appearance, his behavioral patterns, or any self-orientation (as you have suggested).
> How was it at all sacrificial?
Are you familiar with what happened in the flogging and crucifixion of Jesus?
> What about: burnt offerings(the odor is pleasing to the lord), not mixing clothing, not boiling a kid in its mothers milk, eating unleavened bread, and only sacrificing animals without defects..etc, isn't arbitrary?
Not arbitrary at all. There is important symbolism and spiritual import behind each of these commands. Briefly speaking...
- Burnt offerings: A purging by fire of sin so that humans could approach God. It was both an appeasing and an act of dedication. I can't write it all here; we have to talk about it separately if you want to know more.
- Mixing fabrics: a symbol of mixing or coupling things of different natures. It was a perpetual reminder that that people of God were not to compromise themselves with pagan cultures and ways. See also 2 Cor. 6.14ff.
- Boiling a kid in its mother's milk: They were not to practice religion like the pagans. They were different. Boiling sacrificial kids in their mother's milk was a common ritual practice of the Canaanites. With the Canaanites this was also a magic spell, connected with fertility magic, and the Israelites were to eschew all such nonsense. In addition, the Israelite religious system was all about life, and the separation of life forces and death forces. A mother's milk was life-sustaining force, but boiling meat was a death thing. The two were not to be mixed, confused, or associated with each other.
- Unleavened bread. Most of the time the Israelites ate and enjoyed unleavened bread. It was only in certain festivals that yeast (because of its permeating character) was used as a symbol of sin and therefore forbidden during that time of reflection and rededication.
- Sacrificing animals without defect. A vivid picture of the later sinlessness of Christ. It was also a symbol that they shouldn't give God their rejects, but instead offer him their best.
> The part about genocide was to point out all the tribes in the OT that god ordered the Israelites to decimate.
The "decimation" language of the ancient world was not a literal expectation, but rhetorical warfare language. Many examples from the ancient world have been dug up by archaeologists. It was their language of victory, not an expectation of genocide. The intent of the Israelites was to drive the Canaanites out of the land (Ex. 23.28-31; 33.2; 34.11, 24, etc etc.), not kill them all. There was only battle is the Canaanites refused to surrender and refused to leave (Dt. 20.10-15). The "kill them all" language in their culture meant "win a decisive and complete victory." Have you ever seen a sign in front of a grocery store that says "No Standing"? It doesn't mean "no standing," though that's what it says in clear English. **WE** know it pertains to parking your car there, not to people standing there. These are cultural things that one must understand the culture to know. So also the warfare rhetoric. We use the same kind of rhetoric in sports: "Kill 'em. Take them apart. Decimate them."
> Then he saw what would happen, and still let the events play out anyway. If you're all powerful, but you don't use your power to influence things, you may as well be powerless.
You are confusing omniscience and omnipotence. Knowledge is not causative. Just because I know you're going to get a burger doesn't mean I made you do it. Knowledge can't make anybody do anything, no matter how much they know. Knowledge has no causal force in another person.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by Kamahama » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:46 am
> It's because she knows the real danger of disobedience. You cross that street, you're dead meat.
She knows the danger of rushing into the street, which is not the same as the danger of disobedience. That's why the reaming is so intense when you rush into the street, but mild when you stay up too late. Both are disobedience, but she gets much angrier at one than the other because the potential consequence is greater. She's teaching a life lesson, not an obedience lesson.
She will tell you exactly why - "You will get hit by a car and die." If God had said, "Don't eat from that tree because it will have horrific consequences for you and billions of other people, also be wary of snakes," maybe things would have gone differently.
God treats us more like pets than children. The rules you choose for your dog are arbitrary from the dog's point of view, you can't really explain them to it, but the wellbeing of the dog still depends on its pleasing you.
She knows the danger of rushing into the street, which is not the same as the danger of disobedience. That's why the reaming is so intense when you rush into the street, but mild when you stay up too late. Both are disobedience, but she gets much angrier at one than the other because the potential consequence is greater. She's teaching a life lesson, not an obedience lesson.
She will tell you exactly why - "You will get hit by a car and die." If God had said, "Don't eat from that tree because it will have horrific consequences for you and billions of other people, also be wary of snakes," maybe things would have gone differently.
God treats us more like pets than children. The rules you choose for your dog are arbitrary from the dog's point of view, you can't really explain them to it, but the wellbeing of the dog still depends on its pleasing you.
- Kamahama
Re: The Trees in the Garden of Eden
by jimwalton » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:32 am
The point of the analogy is (1) that a person demanding respect and obedience doesn't require that that individual is being self-important and self-oriented, (2) that God was not setting up Adam and Eve for failure, but warning them of dire consequences, and (3) the dangers of falling away from God and the life that is in Him was a fatal mistake.
> Don't eat from that tree because it will have horrific consequences for you and billions of other people
Frankly, you aren't just separated from God because A&E flubbed up. You are separated from God because you yourself, personally, are a sinner also and commit the same rebellion against God every day. Even today, God is calling you to place your trust in Him, to put your sin behind you, and to give your life to him. If you don't, then Adam and Eve are not to blame, but you yourself. Adam and Eve were archetypes (not the same as metaphor or allegory, please) of the human race: they behaved the way any of us would have behaved in the same situation. The point is that humans need God.
> be wary of snakes
It probably wasn't a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze." So the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So what if this "thing" (the nhs) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—the word for snake? Just a little bit of research changes the whole picture.
> God treats us more like pets than children.
Oh, not at all. There was nothing arbitrary about the rules God picked, and He explained many of them. It's true, though, that we don't have the perceptive power and the intellectual skill to apprehend all of God; there are some things we only know by revelation and others we don't know at all. But God certainly doesn't treat us like pets. Instead, he treats us like family.
> Don't eat from that tree because it will have horrific consequences for you and billions of other people
Frankly, you aren't just separated from God because A&E flubbed up. You are separated from God because you yourself, personally, are a sinner also and commit the same rebellion against God every day. Even today, God is calling you to place your trust in Him, to put your sin behind you, and to give your life to him. If you don't, then Adam and Eve are not to blame, but you yourself. Adam and Eve were archetypes (not the same as metaphor or allegory, please) of the human race: they behaved the way any of us would have behaved in the same situation. The point is that humans need God.
> be wary of snakes
It probably wasn't a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze." So the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So what if this "thing" (the nhs) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—the word for snake? Just a little bit of research changes the whole picture.
> God treats us more like pets than children.
Oh, not at all. There was nothing arbitrary about the rules God picked, and He explained many of them. It's true, though, that we don't have the perceptive power and the intellectual skill to apprehend all of God; there are some things we only know by revelation and others we don't know at all. But God certainly doesn't treat us like pets. Instead, he treats us like family.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
24 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest