Thread Killer

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well, first you have to remember that many, many Biblical scholars believe that much of Genesis is metaphorical and/or influenced by Mesopotamian mythology.

And even if it is taken as both literal and accurate, there are a lot of interpretations that can be made.  For example, many have pointed out that in Hebrew "good" and "evil" have much broader meanings.  Thus, some say that the fruit from the tree actually gave knowledge of pleasure and misery.  Furthermore, in this interpretation, "knowledge" might actually mean "experience".  Adam and Eve, of course, knew pleasure, but after eating the tree's fruit, they also knew misery. 

Of course, that's just one interpretation.  Ask ten Biblical scholars about the story's meaning, and you'll get eleven different answers, and that's with two abstaining.

[Eiki-mun]

So in short, nobody really knows what Genesis means.

Fortunately, there is an authority in the matter that we can look to for advice. What does the Patriarch of Constantinople say?

[Veras]

I was just looking for a way that it could be interpreted that wasn't horrible, out of curiosity more than anything else.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I was just looking for a way that it could be interpreted that wasn't horrible, out of curiosity more than anything else.

There are quite a few, actually.

[Eiki-mun]

Which one of them do you personally prefer, UP? Serious question.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Which one of them do you personally prefer, UP? Serious question.

I think the "metaphor" idea is the best, but that's just my opinion.

[davedan]

Which metaphor? I like the metaphor that the fruit of the tree of knowledge is an hallucenigenic mushroom, and that God was not God but the Tribal Shaman. Who had warned the rest of the tribe against it because it tripped them the fuck out. How do you like that metaphor. In it there is no God so he can't appear like a douche. Which metaphor do you like which doesn't ascribe God to being in a position of a fuckwad?

[Askold]

Which metaphor? I like the metaphor that the fruit of the tree of knowledge is an hallucenigenic mushroom, and that God was not God but the Tribal Shaman. Who had warned the rest of the tribe against it because it tripped them the fuck out. How do you like that metaphor. In it there is no God so he can't appear like a douche. Which metaphor do you like which doesn't ascribe God to being in a position of a fuckwad?

...But that is not a metaphor.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I heard an alternate explanation for the fruit from the tree of knowledge.  Basically, it's that God planned all along to send them out of the garden “when they were ready”.  And in order to find out if they were independent enough to live on their own, He set up a test.  When they went against His orders (by eating the fruit) they were ready make their own decisions and live on their own.  Therefore, the fruit & getting kicked out wasn’t a punishment, it was a test, and they passed it.

[Sigmaleph]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does an omniscient being need tests?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does an omniscient being need tests?

Well, there are some passages in the Bible that imply God doesn't always use His foreknowledge.

[Sigmaleph]

Why? Is he concerned about spoilers?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Why? Is he concerned about spoilers?

I'm honestly not sure.

However, another possibility is that the test was more for them than for Him.

[Ironchew]

Well, first you have to remember that many, many Biblical scholars believe that much of Genesis is metaphorical and/or influenced by Mesopotamian mythology.

The crux of the problem here is that Christianity depends on a literal account of Genesis for the concept of sin -- especially the concept of original sin -- to make any sense. I don't take the Bible seriously, so I don't believe in sin. All the promises, threats, and gotchas of Christianity immediately fall apart from there.

YECs like Ken Ham at least acknowledge this problem as the reason they are forced to interpret Genesis literally.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well, first you have to remember that many, many Biblical scholars believe that much of Genesis is metaphorical and/or influenced by Mesopotamian mythology.

The crux of the problem here is that Christianity depends on a literal account of Genesis for the concept of sin -- especially the concept of original sin -- to make any sense. I don't take the Bible seriously, so I don't believe in sin. All the promises, threats, and gotchas of Christianity immediately fall apart from there.

YECs like Ken Ham at least acknowledge this problem as the reason they are forced to interpret Genesis literally.

Wrong.  You can believe in Original Sin without taking Genesis literally.