The whole point of Genesis 1 is the affirmation of the Sabbath. To claim God did not rest is to misunderstand the whole thing.
Richard
I think what he means is that in genesis 2:2 where the sabbath of the first week comes up ( Iāll never understand why it did not extend 1 in the mind of whenever added the letters ) that the word for ā he rested / shabath ā is perhaps better understood as he ceased working. Sometimes people want to argue if god is all powerful why did he need to take a rest type of thing. They feel ā he ceased to stop working ā is better than saying ā he rested from working because they believe it implies he needed a break to recoup.
It would be comparable to Christ being baptised. He did not need it but wanted to show the necessity of it.
Richard
1 Like
I agree. I was just trying to show the argument Iāve seen arise concerning that word.
What is Genesis 1 about?
It is introduction to Genesis, so that is part of the question of what Genesis is about.
Is it a science textbook explaining the origin of everything we see? No it not. There is no similarity to a science textbook and that is certainly not the purpose of Genesis.
A āHow to create the world for Dummiesā book? No. Nothing in the Bible suggest that God has given us anything of the sort and the book of Job tells us the opposite. The implication is instead that we havenāt a clue how God created everything and it is even beyond our capability to understand. Considering all that we have discovered since then where so much defies the dictates of common sense, that is quite a reasonable assessment of the understanding of people at the time.
History? That is the general intent of the book of Genesis, yes. Not according to modern historical science of course. But certainly what passes for history from two millennia ago ā which means it tells a story of things which happened. Yet this is a story highly focused on one people and nation and there is no effort to explain the history of all people on earth. But since this is a story of a relationship between a people and their creator, the author sees it as important to set stage with a story of that creation. But the point is not to tell us how God created but to tell us that God created everything we see and that includes everything that the people of the time were aware of and does not include a great number of things they were not aware of. That awareness extends only thousands of years in time and only thousands of kilometers in distance. There is no awareness of the earth as a globe let alone the vast size of the universe.
I donāt believe that and there is nothing in the Bible to support your claim. That comes from other religions and texts not accepted as authoritative in Christianity. What kind of parent keeps an evil servant around the house with their children, because that is what you are suggesting. I do not believe in a God with that level of irresponsibility and carelessness. No, the story is an explanation of the origin of evil including the origin of the adversary.
1 Like
Funny.
It actually comes from genesis 3*.
The serpent was already trying to deceive Eve before Adam or Eve sinnedā¦ā¦
I mean how could you have misunderstood it? The serpent deceived Eve into sinning. Eve did not sin and then the serpent deceived them.
How did you come to your conclusion? What other texts are you looking at?
That is not in the text and I donāt believe it.
I think the angel was just doing its job to challenge living things so that they would learn and grow.
I came to my conclusion by reading what is actually there in the text rather than simply buying into what other people say is there.
But then trying to figure out where this other stuff came from, I traced it to the non-canonical text called the book of Enoch.
Is not Genesis 1 but Genesis 3-4 and has very little to do with Genesis 1 other than being lumped in with it. Genesis 2-4 (with the exception of the first couple of verses) is clearly a different narration with a different agenda. If you want to discuss the Garden create another thread.
Richard
You are right itās genesis 3. Simple mistake.
However, if you read through the OPs first post
Youāll notice they bring up death and that there was no death or anything bad and the discussion moved into death and things that rot. So the discussion from the start goes into genesis 4 and even other entire books.
I strongly disagree. There is nothing there to believe that the serpent was just doing itās job. If it was then why does it mention in genesis 3 that the woman said the serpent deceived her? Why was it punished? What kind of God do you worship that punishes things for doing His will? That is a god I cannot worship. I donāt accept itā¦ā¦
You mean when she followed Adamās example of blaming everyone and everything but themselves for their own mistake?
Punished? I donāt see that it was. It was given a new role. Adam and Eve put the blame for their failure on the angel and that had consequences. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot give over responsibility to someone else without giving them power over you. And you cannot put the blame for your own sins on another without creating an enemy. The wrong done to the angel was not by God but by Adam and Eve, and it rather clear in the rest of Bible, like in Job, that this angel did not become the enemy of God but the enemy of mankind.
Obviously I donāt. I simply donāt accept your premise for that conclusion.
Neither can I. But nor can I worship a God who puts an evil servant together with innocent children.
When was the last time you saw a serpent that could talk?
Canāt people see the fantastical elements to this narrative? Apart from the talking serpent God wandering around oblivious of the idiocy of leaving the trees of life and knowledge unguarded? āWhere are you Adam?ā āI was hiding!ā Stealing our intelligence? for crying out loud! This is not the God we worship!
If you want someone to do something make it obvious that you are against it. And if God works like that He is being more devious than the serpent.
Canāt you see this is just a massive gripe against the unfairness of the world, birthing pains, and weeds. There must be a reason, so blame Adam, or is it Eve, or the Serpent, who cares as long as itās not me!
Sarcasm aside. The Garden story has a theological value, nothing more, and nothing less. Original Sin is a myth. (and so is the Garden of Eden)
Richard
Richardā¦ā¦ the conversation is going over your head. I donāt think a snake can talk and I think genesis is mythology. Thatās all besides the point of the discussion Iām having. Now to be clear, I place the mythology throughout the entire Bible. Iām not even certain if Jesus actually physically rose from the dead. Jesus may be a corpse and his spirit continued and thst continuation may be through stories and not even literally. So Iām far from being worried about my inconsistencies on what is and what is not mythology.
Whatās being discussed right now is this.
The OP stated that the universe was perfect before Adam sinned. That there was no death and there was no sin and there was no evil.
I stated that i disagree that there was no evil before Adam sinned because before Adam sinned Eve sinned and before Eve sinned I believe the serpent which I donāt think existed at all. Not even as an Angel. I donāt think the serpent was Satan. I think it was choosing evil. But for the sake of the story from the OP perspective I bypassed that and went at it from their view. They take the story literally. So Iām arguing even from a literalist perspective why it makes no sense to me still.
So before Eve sinned there was a evil snake that deceived her. I think this snake sinned before Eve. So I pointed out how could it have been a perfect universe before Adam sinned if both Eve and the serpent sinned first.
The other Mitchell then said something along the lines they donāt think the serpent sinned but that the serpent was simply doing itās job to test Adam and Eve and they failed.
I stayed I disagree and that the serpent did sin and that part of that proof was that the serpent got cursed.
Now Mitchell may or may not believe it was an actual serpent or maybe it was a serpent possessed by a demon or that maybe the serpent was an Angel called a serpent or maybe it was a angel that took the form of a serpent. I have no idea .
I donāt think the serpent existed and I donāt think a Satan, or the Satan, was involved period. I think the serpent represented the human mind choosing sin over righteousness.
Thank you for the clarification. If ever you want to discuss the actuality of the resurrection I would be happy to oblige, but for now, your view of the garden is close enough to mine.
Many of the underlying assertions in early Genesis are cultural and very human, including the notion that we are in Godās physical image. But, I will probably be excommunicated for saying so. Suffice it to say sin is basically a choice not a disease nor an inheritance.
Richard
1 Like
Jesus, the Word, said that God the Father did not rest. When there is a disagreement between the Word - Jesus Christ and the word- the Bible Jesus the Logos has the final say.
Jesus was discussing the Sabbath with the Pharisees. They said that the Law was final, Jesus said Love, the Holy Spirit was final. Jesus was right. Christians do not observe the Sabbath.
Jesus did not need to be baptized, but He was to let us know that we do need to be baptized (by the Spirit.)
God did not rest on the seventh day. The Bible should not have said that God did, because that misrepresented the nature of the 4th Commandment and the Creatrion as taking 6 days. The original meaning of the Sabbath was a reminder of Godās liberation from slavery through the Exodus
Maybe the interpretation of the rest of God (shabbath of God) does not quite capture the original meaning. What did the shabbat mean when we read that God rested and later in Hebrews 4 that some will enter His rest?
Obviously it did not mean that God rested lazily on a couch without doing anything. I believe that entering His rest does not either mean that.
My 2Ā¢: The Lordās Day of Rest.
Methinks people are trying to overcomplicate the matter.
Whether God did, did not, does, or does not rest is beside the point.
Genesis 1 establishes Godās will for people to observe the Sabbath.
Richard
I think that the writing behind the link does not either capture the original meaning well.
The commandment of shabbath includes of course a practical message because humans and donkeys need rest. We could also say that it tells the message that we need to take time (weekly) to focus on what God has done and wants, and to approach God.
But I believe that the rest of God is speaking of something greater than that. Hebrews 4 may reveal something of it. It is related more to our deep relationship with God than to our act of keeping or not keeping the weekly sabbath according to the law (covenant) that was given later to Israel. It contains a promise of something that will come, of time when we do not need to push forward with our own strength. Rest of God, rest in God.
I specifically referred to the serpent as an angel. I also said this was a story of the origin of evil, so I obviously donāt believe there were any demons at the time either.
And no I donāt think the angel was ordered to test Adam and Eve. I donāt think the whole testing theology makes any sense. But I do know that life evolves because of the challenges that living things face. And thus if God is involved in evolution then it makes sense that He would have His angels provide the sort of challenges need for that to happen. In which case, this angel could indeed have only been doing his job. After all, Adam and Eve, were given what they needed to get through such a challenge, a clear commandment from God Himself.
I think so also. It is only the circumstances which are inherited via the bad examples which is practically a part of our biology to imitate. Not that imitation is a foregone conclusion. Many of us manage to rebel against a lot of those bad examples ā seeing the bad effects and determined not to do the same. The problem is that there are simply too many of them and nobody has managed to avoid them all, except one man.