Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Solid]

> Adam and Eve ate the fruit to place themselves at the center of order and the source of wisdom.

Where are you getting order from?

> Consequently, they are sent out in to the larger world and charged with setting it in order themselves

They're sent out for becoming too much like gods, and cursed with having to till the land. There's nothing there about order.

>> Their sin was NOT "getting too close to becoming gods."
"And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden"

> We only learn through situations that push us.

Unless you introduce and omnipotent god into the mix. Then we can learn however god intends.

> I don't know if you have children, but there are times we challenge our kids, knowing that they're still learning, knowing that it will motivate them to learn more

But that's not how you described the test. You described it as god taking a sample of two and seeing whether they would disobey.

> to teach us that we are not the center of order, we are not the source of wisdom, and we need God

Again, why do we need the test for this? In Eden Adam believes everything god says. He could just tell him this straight out.

See how complicated things get when ad-hoc explanations are forced onto a text which had no such intentions?

[jimwalton]

> See how complicated things get when ad-hoc explanations are forced onto a text which had no such intentions?

I regret, as I previous expressed, that you are drawing conclusions before you've gathered the facts and examined the text.

> Where are you getting order from?

The ancient Near East (ANE) was all about order. Read the Gilgamesh Epic, the Enuma Elish, the Atrahasis account, the Egyptian cosmologies, and you see order plastered all over them. Order, disorder, and non-order were their world view and cosmological paradigm. In the ANE, the existence of chaos was a central concern: the raging sea and darkness are the forces of chaos, as is death.

We see exactly the same elements in the biblical text. The tohu vebohu of Gn. 1.2 ("formless and empty") were common ANE expressions of chaos. Genesis describes disorder in the same terms as the ANE: formless and empty. Notice it's not empty of matter, but lacking order. Then it also mentions the primal waters: an archetypal ANE expression of chaos.

In the ANE, something was considered to be "created" not when it began its material existence, but instead when it was ordered and made functional (which is exactly what we see happening in Gn. 1). In Egyptian thinking, the "nonexistent" realm continued to be present in the sea (Gn. 1.2), the dark night (Gn. 1.3-5), and even in the desert (Gn. 2.5)—places not without physical existence but rather without role or function. In the Egyptian pre-creation state, there are two elements of non-order: primeval waters and total darkness.

In other words, these are anything but "ad-hoc explanations."

> They're sent out for becoming too much like gods, and cursed with having to till the land. There's nothing there about order.

They are sent out because they have eaten from the forbidden tree (Gn. 3.11). The serpent is cursed (not the man or the woman) and the ground is cursed.

The text never says they were sent out for becoming too much like gods. They were sent out for eating the fruit, and one of the consequences of that action is that they took upon themselves what is only God's: to be the center of order and wisdom. In other words, they were sent out because of their decision, not because of the result.

> Unless you introduce and omnipotent god into the mix. Then we can learn however god intends.

You're ignoring that God created us with free will. His omnipotence cannot interfere with our free will (or it's not free). God can teach us, which He does, warn us, which He does, and follow through on the consequences He promised or warned, but we learn on the basis of our decisions, not God's.

> But that's not how you described the test. You described it as god taking a sample of two and seeing whether they would disobey.

Exactly as I described. The number doesn't matter. The test is to see if they will recognize God as the center of order and wisdom (which is what the expression "knowledge of good and evil" means in the ANE) or if they will seize that for themselves—just as our children do. Will they follow our lead and advice and heed our warnings, or will they defy us and do what they want. Same thing.

Since "the knowledge of good and evil" is an ancient judicial idiom (Gn. 31.24; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9 etc.), 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 Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) 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( Gn. 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).

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.

> In Eden Adam believes everything god says.

How do you know this? Gn. 3.6 would suggest differently.

[Peruser]

> When the Bible says that God created humans from the dust (Gn. 2.7), He is saying that humans are mortal—it's part of their nature, as opposed to immortality (Gn. 3.17; Ps. 103.14).

What part of ”Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground” has anything to do with mortality? This is obviously abiogenesis, and would be completely unneccesary if humans already existed. This is also in conflict with your reading of Genesis 2:15, because the text clearly states that Adam and Eve were created and not taken from elsewhere.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for letting me clarify.

First of all, Genesis 1-2 are about how God ordered the cosmos and Earth to function, not about their material manufacture. If it's about manufacture, we expect to start with nothing. If it's about ordering what's there, we expect it to start with non-ordered material things, which is how it begins (Gn. 1.2).

In the ancient world, their worldview centered around order, disorder, and non-order. Elements of non-order were things like the primeval sea and darkness. Notice that Gn. 1.2 speaks of empty and formless, the primeval sea, and then in Gn. 1.3-5 God orders the light and darkness (not physical light, but periods of light called day and periods of darkness called night in alternating sequence) to give us the function of time.

Notice that the Earth functions to produce vegetation (Gn. 1.11-12), the heavenly bodies function to give us seasons (1.14-19), the waters function to bring forth life (1.20-24), the land functions to produce life (vv. 24-25), and the function of humanity is to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the Earth and subdue it (v. 28). It's about function, not material manufacture.

Chapter 2 is no different. Chapter 2 is not talking about Day 6 of creation, or we have a BIG problem. Chapter 2 is not *synoptic* (doubling back to explain what has already been said, but a *sequel*, taking us to a later time period. It's not a rival creation story or taking us back over the same territory, but moving on.

We get the heading in 2.4: "These are the generations of..." It's a new set.

2.5-6: We are told how disordered the earth is. It's not functioning the way it should. There is no productivity under the control of humanity. Domesticated crops are not yet present; neither rain nor irrigation are available. It's a situation of non-order. It's like a barren desert (another element of non-functional disorder in the ancient world).

2.7. The term "formed" (vayyitzer) is not about manufacturing something that was not there before, but about how God has ordered events, destinies, and roles (Zech. 12.1; 2 Ki. 19.25 Ps. 33.15; 139.16 to name a few of dozens). God is showing us the function and destiny of humanity: as mortal. From texts like Ps. 103.14; Eccl. 3.20; Gn. 3.19, and even 1 Cor. 15.47, we can see that "the dust of the earth" is an expression of mortality. "Dust" is not the manufacturing material of humanity; the text isn't talking about material manufacture. It is saying that in Adam we are all created mortal (and hence, then, the need for a tree of life).

> This is obviously abiogenesis, and would be completely unneccesary if humans already existed.

It's not so obvious. It's not a statement of origins but of nature. Again, look at 1 Cor. 15.47: the second man is not manufactured from heaven, and therefore the first man is not manufactured from the earth. Paul is talking about the disparity between the natural bodies that die (mortality) and the spiritual bodies that don't (immortality).

In 1 Cor. 15.45, it says Adam is the first man and Christ is the last. Therefore it cannot be seen as a claim that Adam was the first biological specimen, since Christ was not the last biological specimen. Instead, it's talking about how the two men represent humanity in different ways (the natural and moral vs. the spiritual and immortal). Mortality is our earthly nature; resurrection to immortality is our spiritual nature.

> This is also in conflict with your reading of Genesis 2:15, because the text clearly states that Adam and Eve were created and not taken from elsewhere.

Genesis 2.15 says nothing about the origins of "the man" (When the text uses the definite article, as here, it is speaking of all humans, not an individual. It is a category, not a name.). It doesn't state they were created, and certainly not "clearly states." Verse 15 is talking about placement and being given a role and function.

It says God "took" the humans. Took them from where? Very possibly this couple is being removed from the everyday realm of human existence and placed in a specially prepared location—the Garden, as it also says in v. 8). If other people are around, he is being elected from among them to play a special role. From Gn. 4.14, 17 we could reasonably deduce that there are other people around—in fact, that may be the clearest and easiest reading.

I don't see anything in conflict with my reading of Gn. 2.7 & 15.

[Hezzer]

> Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell.

Did you miss this part in my comment? "with the majority of Christian denominations and their doctrines"

It would have saved you a lot of time typing because what you said is what I believe in terms of the Bible. The problem is the countless denominations that teach Eternal Hellfire and practically a merciless God. We both know that eternal hell is the default teachings of Christianity.

[url]Mercifultruth.com[/url] is aligned to what I believe in terms of the Christian construct. I personally am more a follower of Sanatana Dharma because it makes the most sense to me and it's universal- I also believe in Christ's teachings.

[jimwalton]

> Did you miss this part in my comment? "with the majority of Christian denominations and their doctrines

No, I didn't miss that. Not knowing you, and having only a brief comment to go by, it was tough to know exactly what you meant by that. In addition, I don't know if you've heard of theologies like reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, or modified eternalism, so it was worth mentioning. It was also worth writing because others read the thread and the post. It's OK if you already knew this stuff.

> The problem is the countless denominations that teach Eternal Hellfire and practically a merciless God

Certainly God is merciful. You can't read the Bible and not see this attribute in many texts and examples.

> [url]Mercifultruth.com[/url] is aligned to what I believe in terms of the Christian construct.

I'm not familiar with this, so I spent a little time on the website skimming material. I didn't read it thoroughly, but it almost seems to be teaching universalism and that we can become sinless in this life. Rather than me making a bum assumption, possibly you could briefly explain the position to me. I've never heard of this, so I'm curious to learn.

> Sanatana Dharma

I think it's typical for Hindus to recognize Christ as an avatar. On a perusal of Sanatana Dharma, it seems like a system of moral living. Am I seeing it correctly?

[Solid]

> In the ANE, the existence of chaos was a central concern: the raging sea and darkness are the forces of chaos, as is death.

Yea fine. Yahweh "creates" the world by forming order out of chaos. Perhaps you could argue Adam and Eve pursued becoming like gods so they too could order chaos and create. I don't think that's in the text though.

> They are sent out because they have eaten from the forbidden tree (Gn. 3.11)

That's not what 3.11 says.

> The text never says they were sent out for becoming too much like gods

And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden

Now they've eaten the first fruit and become a bit like god with knowledge, they might eat the second and become like gods with immortality. So they are banished.

> one of the consequences of that action is that they took upon themselves what is only God's: to be the center of order and wisdom

You'll have to support this.

> You're ignoring that God created us with free will. His omnipotence cannot interfere with our free will (or it's not free)

Where are you getting this from? Is the god of genesis omnipotent?

> the center of order and wisdom (which is what the expression "knowledge of good and evil" means in the ANE)

You'll have to support this

> Humans had to decide for themselves if they were going to follow their own false wisdom or God's true wisdom.

This doesn't make sense. They chose god's wisdom by eating the fruit. But apparently that was the wrong decision?

[jimwalton]

> Yea fine. Yahweh "creates" the world by forming order out of chaos.

Well, don't just blow it off like it's a tiny matter. It was their governing worldview. That's like minimizing that we Americans function with a worldview of individual rights, autonomy, and freedom. It's not a tiny matter. It's our entire cultural context.

> Perhaps you could argue Adam and Eve pursued becoming like gods so they too could order chaos and create.

Adam and Eve were indeed making the case that they could function as the center of order. That was the point. Instead of recognizing that as God's place and role, they took it upon themselves.

>> They are sent out because they have eaten from the forbidden tree (Gn. 3.11)
> That's not what 3.11 says.

You said their sin was "getting too close to becoming gods," and that's why they were sent out. I am showing you that Gn. 3.11 specifies their sins as having eaten from the forbidden tree, so that's why they were sent out.

> Now they've eaten the first fruit and become a bit like god with knowledge, they might eat the second and become like gods with immortality. So they are banished.

You're seeing the trees but missing the forest. They've had knowledge all along. Adam is not some grunting cave man who is suddenly enlightened or given a brain like the Straw Man in the Wizard of Oz. What A&E have done is decided to make themselves the center of order and wisdom, to seize God's roles and functions and make them their own.

And it's true that they have to be kept from access to the Tree of Life. God won't allow them to live forever in their sinful state.

What we are told is that continued eating from the Tree of Life could allow them to live forever (Gn. 3.22). So what we know is that humans were mortal, not immortal (Gn. 2.7, "made from dust" suggests their mortality, by nature; also they needed the Tree of Life to extend life beyond their natural mortal years). It's not "the food of immortality" protecting them from death, but fruit that apparently extends life. Wisdom, in Proverbs 3.16-18, is a "tree of life," granting someone blessing and a long life. Proverbs 13.12 speaks of a "tree of life" that is a good thing that makes life better. So also Proverbs 15.4. All these passages speak of a Tree of Life as if it enhances life, but never does it grant immortality. Only God can grant immortality, not fruit. The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden symbolizes that life which is God's alone to give.

We can't go with "the tree protected A & E from death." Death had to have been in the system before the Fall. If plants could serve as food, then plants died. And since death was in the system, there is no reason to draw a false line between flora and fauna, claiming that flora died but fauna didn't. Instead we are better to understand it that because of sin people lost access to the tree of life and became fully susceptible to death. In other words, the tree of life represents grace, but not immortality.
But we still have to deal with Genesis 3.22 and Revelation 22.2. Gen. 3.22 says "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Genesis 3.6 equates the tree with wisdom, as does Proverbs 3.16-18. Based on the context and analysis, then, what Gn. 3.22 is about is that if A & E had lived in wisdom, meaning in the likeness of God, rather than following their own ways, they could have lived forever in God's grace. Not that their mortal bodies would have been immortal, but that God would have granted them eternal life after physical life as a reward for their living in relationship with Him. It wasn't magical fruit, but symbolic of their dependence on God and their loving obedience of His will. After their sin, they are barred from eating it. They turned their backs on God's wisdom and their obedient dependence on Him, so therefore walked away from God's free gift of eternal life.

>> one of the consequences of that action is that they took upon themselves what is only God's: to be the center of order and wisdom
> You'll have to support this.

In the ancient world, the deity was not only the center of wisdom, but also wisdom personified (Prov. 1.20-4.27; chs. 8 & 9). A relationship with God was the beginning of wisdom (Job 28.8; Prov. 1.7). Word studies suggest the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is associated with mature wisdom (Gn. 3.6; 1 Ki. 3.9).

Many Old Testament passage link "the knowlege of good and evil" with moral autonomy. I've mentioned before that "good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision" (Gn. 24.50; 31.24, 29; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9; 22.18; 2 Sam. 14.17). What is forbidden to man in Gn. 2.16-17 is the power to decide for himself (moral autonomy) what is in his best interests and what is not. This is a decision God has not delegated to humans.

> Where are you getting this from? Is the god of genesis omnipotent?

Yes, the God of Genesis is omnipotent. Gn. 1 would be one obvious source of this concept. He is all-powerful to order the world to function as He wishes. Genesis 17.1; 28.3; 35.11; 43.14; 49.25 calls God "the Lord Almighty" (El Shaddai): The all-powerful one. It's also a statement of His self-sufficiency. Gn. 18.14 says that nothing is too hard for the Lord.

> This doesn't make sense. They chose god's wisdom by eating the fruit. But apparently that was the wrong decision?

They chose to defy God's wisdom by eating the fruit. They didn't choose God's wisdom; they chose against God's wisdom. God had warned them not to do it (2.17). God alone is truly morally autonomous. in His omniscience and omnipotence, He alone stands at the center of order and wisdom. Humankind must access the knowledge of good and evil via a relationship with God, not apart from Him. By trying to gain wisdom improperly (via their own means rather than via relationship with God), they create a breach in the relationship and separate themselves from the life of God. (What they lost in this action was not primarily access to the Garden, but mostly access to the presence of God. They were cast forth from His presence.) There is nothing wrong with gaining wisdom and gaining life, but it must be approached in the proper way—by tying into God, not by becoming autonomous from Him.

[Peruser]

> “We get the heading in 2.4: "These are the generations of..." It's a new set.” Genesis 2:4 NIV: “ This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”

What version are you reading?

> “2.5-6: We are told how disordered the earth is. It's not functioning the way it should. There is no productivity under the control of humanity.” Genesis 2:5 NIV: “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”

The productivity wasn’t lacking, there was no one to work the ground, since humanity wasn’t created yet. Where do you get this stuff from?

> “2.7. The term "formed" (vayyitzer) is not about manufacturing something that was not there before [...] From texts like Ps. 103.14; Eccl. 3.20; Gn. 3.19, and even 1 Cor. 15.47, we can see that "the dust of the earth" is an expression of mortality.”

First of all, vayyitzer not referring to creation of something that wasn’t there before is simply due to humanity being created by dust. Secondly, I can’t check your verses because of your weird shortenings, except for Genesis and Corinthians, but it seems to me like the dust stuff is moreso a “God created you” thing. I read Genesis 3:19 (for dust you are and to dust you will return) and interpreted it as “You are one of God’s creations and will return to Him”, mainly because dust was previously associated with God and this simply seems biblical. If the Bible was referring to mortality, it sure wasn’t making it obvious for anyone, really, which would be very annoying if, I don’t know, laymen read it? Occam’s razor.

> “Again, look at 1 Cor. 15.47: the second man is not manufactured from heaven, and therefore the first man is not manufactured from the earth.”

Jesus’s father was God, so he manufactured him in a sense, the same way that the dust and God made Adam, with God providing the better part of the work in both cases.

> “In 1 Cor. 15.45, it says Adam is the first man and Christ is the last. Therefore it cannot be seen as a claim that Adam was the first biological specimen, since Christ was not the last biological specimen.”

In the New International Version and New King James Version, it says that they were the first and last Adams, which makes more sense. I’m truly curious what translation you’re using.

> “Genesis 2.15 says nothing about the origins of "the man"”

And that’s not what I’m claiming. I’m saying that, since man was previously created earlier in the text, they weren’t taken from everyday life, probably out of Heaven or whatever plane He was floating on when creating the Earth.

As a side note, how do you reconcile Genesis 2:19-2:22 (That animals were previously “formed out of the ground”(NIV) and Eve made out of Adam’s rib) with your beliefs?

[jimwalton]

> What version are you reading?

I was translating from the Hebrew. The term is תוֹלְדוֹת (toledoth). It means "Origins; generations; posterity; births; birth-facts; birth-stages."

NIV, NASB: This is the account of...
KJV, ESV, ASV, RSV: These are the generations of...

It's the same term used 10 times through the book that introduce the descendants of some person or the narrative about that person. "Offspring" or "descendants" fits many of the other 9, but that's sort of a weird translation here. So the NIV and NASB go for "the account of," sort of like "the narrative about..."

Here in Gn. 2.4, the idea seems be not the process by which the heavens and earth are generated, but rather that which is generated by the heavens and earth. The heavens and the earth bring forth the provision of God for the people He created and the plan of God in history, which is forthcoming.

> The productivity wasn’t lacking, there was no one to work the ground, since humanity wasn’t created yet. Where do you get this stuff from?

Genesis 1-2 are not about the cosmos's material creation. If it were, we would expect the narrative to start with nothing. But instead, the narrative starts with things in place, just lacking order (Gn. 1.2). Then God orders the periods of light and darkness to alternate in sequence, giving us the function of time. That is their role. The role of the earth is to bring forth vegetation. The role of the heavenly bodies is to regulate the times and seasons. The role of the land and sea is to bring forth life. The role of humanity is to rule and subdue. It's about God ordering the world to function in a certain way, not about how God created it. (God certainly created it, but that's not what Gn. 1-2 are about.)

Humanity had already been created. In 1.26, they're around (but this is not a text about their material manufacture, rather it's about God giving them their role and function as His image-bearers).

> your weird shortenings

Ps. = the book of Psalms
Eccl. = Ecclesiastes

> I read Genesis 3:19 (for dust you are and to dust you will return) and interpreted it as “You are one of God’s creations and will return to Him”, mainly because dust was previously associated with God and this simply seems biblical.

Sort of the most important piece of Genesis 3.19 is "for dust you are." Obviously a human isn't literally dust, so the use is figurative. The ancients knew nothing about chemistry or our chemical composition. They also knew that a live human was different from a decomposed human, which could be described literally as "dust." So the author is obviously meaning something different.

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you die." So he's talking about mortality. Your hard work will finally kill you.

"Since from the ground you were taken." Figurative: you will die because you've always been mortal.

"For dust you are": You've always been mortal. Mortality is your nature.

"And to dust you will return": And death inevitably waits for you. All will succumb. It's your nature as a human to be mortal and to die.

> Jesus’s father was God, so he manufactured him in a sense, the same way that the dust and God made Adam, with God providing the better part of the work in both cases.

You're twisting the sense of 1 Corinthians 15.47. You said that "Jesus's father was God, so he manufactured him in a sense." That's your story and you're going to stick with it?? "The first man was of the dust of the earth." The point is obviously that he has a natural physical body, which is what Paul has been talking about.

Then when he goes to "the second man from heaven," are you seriously arguing that he's talking about Christ's incarnation and God's "manufacturing" him? You've missed the whole point of 1 Corinthians 15.35-58, where he's contrasting the resurrection body with the physical body. If the words are about God "manufacturing" Jesus in his physical body, then we might as well throw out 1 Cor. 15.49-50 as not only meaningless, but a lie.

> In the New International Version and New King James Version, it says that they were the first and last Adams, which makes more sense. I’m truly curious what translation you’re using.

I translate from the Greek, but the point is that (even if you are using the NIV and the NKJV) it's impossible to read the verse as talking about physical bodies because Jesus didn't have the last physical body. Yes, the Greek says "the first man Adam" and "the last Adam, but Jesus was most certainly not the last man in time and history. Paul obviously means it differently—theologically.

> Gn. 2.15: I’m saying that, since man was previously created earlier in the text, they weren’t taken from everyday life, probably out of Heaven or whatever plane He was floating on when creating the Earth.

Why do you have to make up something like this? There is NOTHING to even hint that Adam & Eve were in heaven or where God was. Genesis 1 is geocentric and theocentric. There is no mention of Heaven, only rather "the heavens" meaning the sky and their view of outer space (the stars, moon, etc.) The text is about the cosmos and the Earth. There is NOTHING about Heaven. Even when humanity is mentioned in 1.26-30, it is in the context of Earth.

> how do you reconcile Genesis 2:19-2:22 (That animals were previously “formed out of the ground”(NIV) and Eve made out of Adam’s rib) with your beliefs?

Since I've already established that yayitser doesn't mean "manufactured," this is obviously figurative language. Naming was an important function of ordering and ruling. We see God naming things in Genesis 1. Adam naming the animals is him "ruling and subduing," the roles and functions given to him by God. In chapter 1, God is the namer; Here man is the namer, exercising his God-given work.

As far as "rib," nowhere else in the Old Testament is this same word used of anything anatomical, so we shouldn't take it as anatomical here. This is not an occasion of material manufacture. The "deep sleep" Adam is in in a visionary experience, not anesthesia. The ancients would NEVER think in terms of surgery. The rib is not anatomical. God is showing the man that the woman is his complement, his equal (bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh). The emphasis is on their relatedness and their unity. The thought here is more like extending the "flesh-line" and the kinship that results is on the basis of a different type of relationship—in some ways stronger and more intimate than a bloodline relationship (as v. 25 indicates). She is equal in being and worth.