Maybe you should be more clear when you’re criticizing a specific, overly literal interpretation of the Bible and when you’re criticizing any attempt to take the Bible seriously. In any case, it wasn’t a test! Haha
1 Like
Would you favor me with your view of the situation? In your eyes, what is the point of putting Adam & Eve in a situation well over their heads … and then expelling both of them from their home?
@gbrooks9 Honestly, I can’t give you a full view of my thoughts right now. It’s a top-secret project. 
However, you can find a sneak preview over on this thread about the tree of knowledge.
I can say that previous generations of theologians were free to let their imaginations run wild while interpreting Gen. 2-3, because they knew almost nothing about the actual history of the earth or of mankind. Thus, a lot of ideas were imported into the story that are not actually supported either by the text or by our knowledge of history. The idea that the tree was a test is just one example.
1 Like
TIt seems to me the problem is again here treating the Genesis text as something approaching a kind of history. It should be taken figuratively. The “very good” could be seen as others have said as something related to “fit for purpose” and that some things are right and neccessary, including natural death.
We have to deal with what could be called the “limited knowldge” of the biblical writers.
1 Like
The design of natural nature on Earth is “very good” (in my opinion). That is, it works. We have plant eaters and meat eaters. They keep it all in balance. Yes, it is violent, but it is a balance of nature. If we didn’t have carnivores in nature it would not eliminate suffering of herbivores. Many herbivores would starve to death, and to me, that may be worse that killed quickly by a carnivore.