So the “wild west” is theologically analogous to the Garden of Eden?
I haven’t said what I believe, I have pointed out that your conclusion is not the only one that fits with the text.
First, because the text doesn’t use the right Hebrew verbs for that. If it said that He “made” the Flood (Hebrew עָשָׂה [ah-sah]), that would be possible, but it doesn’t use that word about the Flood (it does use it of God making man, and of Noah making the Ark). It also doesn’t say, “And God did many, many other miracles to make it all happen”, which is a YEC requirement.
Why try to make it fit science? Why not cast that idol aside and just read the text?
I’d say that the problem is that YEC wants to make miracles when the text doesn’t say there were any, because they require those miracles in order to fit the text to their science.
How about just sticking with what Peter wrote, that God preserved the Ark?
Is irrelevant. Why you insist on interpreting the text by reference to Darwin baffles me. YEC makes an idol of science and another of Darwin!
St Roymond,
on the one hand you say “God didnt made the flood”, then on the other hand you openly admit "it does claim that “Noah made the ark”…clearly in the text this is at the direction of God.
I do not see the point of making the criticism that God told Noah to make a huge Ark for reasons where “God didnt also intend to Make a Flood” when its very clearl in the text that this is exactly why God instructed Noah to build the ark…that He intended to wipe out all living things that creepeth over the earth…the flood in Genesis 6 and 7 is clearly global there…and that context is also proven in Matthew 24, 2 Peter 2, as well as the final outcome in Revelation 21 (where a new earth is illustrated where there is no more suffering, pain, death, sickness, crying etc)?
Even scientists today extrapolate to a far greater degree truths that you are certain are illustrative of our past despite there being almost never direct evidence we can rely on the tell us those timelines are indeed accurate…particularly as we have written historical claims that do not support modern scientific hypotheses going back even only 4000-6000 years ago!
I stick to the view that any claim science makes over documented history is absurd. As a Christian i believe that the Bible is documented history (and we have a wealth of evidence proving this to be true even without the Christianity faith bit)
What i find interesting about modern intellectualism is its ability to make the statements that said history must be mythical or folk lore (such as Aboriginal tales of Noahs Flood) without actually using any intellectual reasoning to ensure stupidity doesnt rule.
This stupidity is where a fundamental must be adhered to no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. The difference here being, im on the side of the historical writings which 100% predate the modern scientific intellectualism and its bindings to atheistic theories about the quesitons of epistemology. From your statements it seems to me that you are on the side of the modern intellectualism…the version that thinks it knows the history because of scientific hypothesis (theory) and rehashes history accordingly…and its gets away with this because those writers of ancient times cannot stand here and defend their writings!
For me, when science is truly unbiased it also aligns with historical writings and archeology
Whilst we are on this point…I have recently come across an interesting read by CHU Kang - Discovery in Genesis where the authors make the argument that the ancient Chinese pictographic language has ties to Abrahimic religious themes dating back to just after the time of the Tower of Babel.
These themes in the pictographic language illustrate Biblical themes such as the notion of God, Adam & Eve, and Noahs flood.
Would you respond to the immediate topic rather than go off on a tangent? The subject at hand was animal skins and the Flood and the comparison, and the fact that the comparison doesn’t hold up based on the text.
You only call them that because that’s what MSWV concludes they are – totally ignoring the fact that they are ancient literature written tom ancient people.
Trying letting the Bible be what it is for a change.
There was no tree to cut down. There was no physical garden or actual fruit to eat. It is a story about the human mind. The story is a pictorial depiction of the awakening of consciousness in the human mind with the knowledge of good and evil. It gives us the designation of ‘sons of God’.
Agreed. The names of these trees do not sound anything like a species of angiosperm.
Of course there was. Many places on earth can be described in this way. They certainly have existed and many still do exist.
No. There is nothing in the story about the human mind. This story is not psychology, neurochemistry, neurophysiology, or even a philosophical discussion of the mind. Frankly I think a statement like this practically without any meaning whatsoever.
No it is not. Frankly this looks like nothing more than a lame excuse to simply ignore the vast majority of the content of this story.
There was a reason, a lesson, in it taking two attempts for Jesus to restore sight to this blind man:
Mark 8:22 Then He came to Bethsaida; and they brought a blind man to Him, and begged Him to touch him. 23 So He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the town. And when He had spit on his eyes and put His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. 24And he looked up and said, “I see men like trees, walking.” 25 Then He put His hands on his eyes again and made him look up. And he was restored and saw everyone clearly.
Bethsaida means a desert place… there is a lack of water.
He spit on his eyes… making them misty?
He put his hands on him… forming.
He sees men like trees walking… he gets a glimpse of the Garden of Eden.
Look at the parallels:
Gen 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Whether or not there was a physical Garden, the Garden story is not “a pictorial depiction of the awakening of consciousness in the human mind with the knowledge of good and evil” – Moses would have had no clue what you were talking about if you told him that (or whoever you think wrote it down).
Sure, it can be applied that way from our modern perspective, but that’s an entirely different thing than saying that’s what it was about.
Mitchell is correct:
Please try actually paying attention to the text rather than diving into your bizarre allegory.
The Garden of Eden is the earth that we are living on, so in that sense, there was and is still an actual garden. What changed is our perspective and experience of it with the awakening of our mind to knowledge and consciousness. The indication that the essence of the story refers to our mind is the inclusion of a talking snake and a flaming sword guarding a ‘fountain of youth’. Those things can only exist in our imagination.
I am certain that the writer and the contemporaneous readers of the story knew that the talking snake and flaming sword were figures in the imagination. They require an allegorical understanding or the story is nonsense.
Come on. While there are many place on the earth which CAN be describe as a garden of Eden there are also many place which cannot AND we know that places change – physically and not just a matter of perspective. So I see no reason whatsoever not to think that Adam and Eve went from a garden of Eden to a place like is described in the story where life was much more difficult. It is one thing to see symbolism and spiritual meanings in the story when there are excellent reasons to do, but when you do this without such reasons then it looks more like you are just looking for excuses to ignore the text.
Except they exist elsewhere in the Bible where they are given specific meanings. Flame/fire and the sword are common symbols for truth. And the snake is referred to as an angel cast down from heaven with other angels. And you can go too far with this “only exist in imagination” claim – all the way to atheism. So no I don’t think angels and God “can only exist in our imagination.”
Sorry, but that’s contrary to the text – the Garden had geographical boundaries.
That “talking snake” was a nakhash, a “shining one”, meaning a heavenly being (the link between heavenly beings and snakes is a fascinating one). And in the ANE a snake was also considered something not to be trusted (we even use the word that way today). As for the “fountain of youth”, that was something people back then expected to find in a place where deity lived, and if anything it represents the desire to not die. For the flaming sword, that was the common weapon of a cherub, and a cherub is a mighty throne guardian; think of a flagman at a road construction site wielding a sign that says “STOP”, except this stop sign is not passable.
Nope, and nope. You’re projecting a modern scientific worldview (MSWV) back into an earlier culture. The writer and his audience knew the snake and the sword for the things I wrote above. They also understood the Garden as a special place, something to be expected where deity dwells; after all, the gods can’t lack for anything, so where they live everything must be around in abundance, all orderly and beautiful and easily available. And if humans had to be kept from where the gods were, what else but a throne guardian with his/its deadly weapon?
Thank you for confirming that the meaning of the Garden of Eden story is found in metaphor. Only the human mind can understand a metaphor with the thoughts and mental imagery that the metaphor represents. As for the question of God removing the tree from the middle of the Garden, the meaning of the story is not about an actual tree. The question is, why did God allow humans to have a conscious mind rather than keeping us as purely instinctive creatures like the rest of the animals He created?! God’s creation got along fine for millions of years before there was any evidence of the literate language that humans created to give durable expression to the thoughts that are in our mind.
I didn’t say that at all! There’s a vast difference between metaphor and mythologized history (or just mythology), and the Garden story is not metaphor nor does it make use of it, it is speaking in terms that were regarded as real within the ancient worldview.
In terms of the story it most certainly is! Without that tree the Garden would likely not have counted as a paradise where heaven overlapped with the earthly world.
That’s answered in the previous story: the rest weren’t made to function as YHWH-Elohim’s imaage(s).
The fact that the Garden was real in the ancient worldview fits with the understanding that the story is about the human mind. It says that reality is what we think or believe it to be as much as what we empirically experience. The literal reality of the Garden story perfectly explains the kosher laws and dietary restrictions of the Hebrew people. If eating the wrong fruit can produce shame due to nakedness, then there must be other foods that require special attention. The reality that is in the mind matters more than what may actually be the case, particularly when the character called God puts a restriction on something. It goes back to my original statement. There may not have been an actual tree or even a God to cut it down, but because it was real in the thinking of the ANE, it matters. The literal understanding of the Garden story places ancient human limitations on God.
It doesn’t say that at all. It says that God took a very personal interest in the human race, enough to make a place where heaven and earth overlapped so that the heavenly realm and the human one could interact directly.
It doesn’t say that at all. Genesis begins by introducing the Hebrew people to the main characters of the book. It first introduces them to God and the nature of His authority through the power of literate language. It then introduces them to human nature in relation to God’s authority. The Garden story is not about a tree. It is about human nature.
You’re forcing a Christian worldview onto the text.
Its amusing to watch two individuals argue over a theological problem caused by a complete twisting of the text. Twisting scripture causes an impossible situation there…neither view is supportable, hence the almost ridiculous attempts at defending each view…none of which use biblical supporting references.
We can know the correct meaning via a natural reading of the text.
Moses writings are known to be recounting the historical journey of early mankind and later the jewish nation (abrahams descendants) right up to just before the conquest of canaan…its clearly historical narrative.
Moses makes it pretty obvious when what he writes is not to be taken that way. For example:
Song of the Sea" (Exodus 15), the “Song of Moses” (Deuteronomy 32), and the “Blessing of Moses” (Deuteronomy 33
Those are clearly songs/poems as their titles also suggest. Context is very important in knowing one is correctly reading ancient Hebrew writings. Whej we clnskder context, and then reference other muvh later binlocal writings from othet authors in different languages, such as Greek, we know Genesis is historical necause there are other writers who directly reference its such as matthew 24:38&39 and 2 Peter 2:4-8 & 2 Peter 3:5,6.
If Christ and Peter are referencing a moral allegory in Genesis, then the gospel is nothing more than a moral allegory…that means christ didnt really rise from the grave (its also just an allegory), and there is no real second coming as claimed by Christ as its just a moral allegory.
