Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126666 | ||
Angel, Interesting thought. You make a reasonable point on a material and physical level. I will have to disagree with you, though, on the grounds that we are speaking of two different things. Your statement has merit, but is of a different nature from my statement. This is not to say that you are wrong, only that your answer addresses my statement on the wrong level. You are speaking physically. I am speaking metaphorically. According to the previously related hypothesis, the knowledge of good and evil is quite readily available in the world today. If the creation story is part allegory, and many do believe that, then the fruit, while growing on a tree in the Garden of Eden, is merely symbolic, and still within grasp. Ezekiel 31 gives an interesting analogy on the Garden of Eden, reckoning it to be the world, and the trees the people in it. What I was saying is that, according to the hypothesis, the fruit, as opposed to being something material, was something spiritual; knowledge of good and evil. When she tasted the fruit, being supposed as something sexual according to this hypothesis, it can also be correlated to the figurative use of the apple tree in the garden portrayed in the Song of Solomon. Which tree, as it is there written, is recognized as being a man, and the fruit of the apple tree being his love (whether affectionate or physical is not clearly stated). In other words, the knowledge of good and evil is in the world, and this originally came by way of the fruit. As said knowledge passes from one generation to the next, it is reasonable to consider that the fruit has either a long-lasting taste, or the fruit, perpetuating seeds, has generated new trees from which to taste that we all might die and find new life. Let me reiterate what I said before: I am undecided as to whether this has credible merit. However, we should be quick to listen, and we should never silence wisdom. If we don't consider the possibility, we can never find truth. Thank you for your response. Again, you make a good point, and it is worth consideration. Ancient |
||||||
2 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | JCrichton | 126735 | ||
"When she tasted the fruit, being supposed as something sexual according to this hypothesis," Hi, Ancient! Notice how limiting this definition of "knowledge of good and evil" is? There was so much more going on (as it is today) even before the sexual issue: Eve rejected the Creator's Word over the creature's lies. Eve assimilated the creature's promise of power: being equal to God was the incentive to disobey God's Command (there was no incentive to sexual awareness or gratification). Adam did not run to Eve because she entised him with sexual/amorous offerings--he simply accepted her offer and ate. It was at this time that they both became aware of their sexuality! Both Adam and Eve covered themselves up even before hiding from God! There's doesn't seem to be any real time lapse between the moment of their awareness and their decision to cover up. Adam confesses not that he has disobeyed God's Command, but that he is naked and hid from God's eyes. As quickly as he is discovered, Adam shifts the blame onto the woman. As soon as Eve is exposed she, in turn, focuses the blame on the snake! Adam and Eve's new found "knowledge" was not simply of sexual awareness and activity! To think that the tree of "Knowledge of good and evil" was something merely phisical is simplistic... but so it is to consider that "knowledge of good and evil" is about sexual consciousness! God Bless! Angel |
||||||
3 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126748 | ||
I am sorry Angel, but you are very much misunderstanding what is being explained. The point of debate here is Ancient explaining where we get the modern story of Eve picking an "apple" from the tree of knowledge. I do not believe that in any way he advocates this scenario as "sexual conciousness," nor do I believe he is "simplifying" the sin of Adam and Eve and Satan. Again, he is relating the mythology of the "apple" (as in fruit of the apple tree) in the creation story, as opposed to some other type of fruit. For example, we do not hold to the idea that Eve picked a Coconut or a Watermelon from the tree, nor a peach nor a nectarine. For some reason, the popular idea places an "apple" in Eve's hand. It was Ancient's intention to offer an explanation of where that myth may come from, and not an attempt to advocate that the sin was "sexual conciousness" or any other effect of a sexual nature. I hope this helps you understand the debate. Please read the entire thread. Thank you! |
||||||