Garden of Eden question

[QtheQreater]

But...God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Why would God command them to do that if they were incapable of it? I'm sure they have a response to that if what you said is true, but still...

Hence the need for the Fall, I suppose. I'd have to dig out my official Doctrine and Covenants book and such to answer that...pretty sure it isn't in The Book of Mormon, but the other writings of Joseph Smith are considered equal in authority.

[Nate]

the other writings of Joseph Smith are considered equal in authority.

<.<

>.>

Except the writings where he said to do things that are currently against the law. XP

[QtheQreater]

You know, the more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that Augustine and Origen were right and that we should read at the very least the chapters leading up to story of Abraham as allegory. It just makes life easier.

Every time I hear someone reference Augustine and allegory, I can't help but think of the allegorical interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. That put me off of allegorical interpretations for a very, very long time.

Easier? Maybe not...

[QtheQreater]

<.<

>.>

Except the writings where he said to do things that are currently against the law. XP

Polygamy? Hee hee. That's where all the fun begins with debating Mormon theology, and where you start getting the Salt Lake Temple guards thrown at you. I'm not sure what they normally do with the Adam and Eve question. I'll have to try that next time I'm in Salt Lake City.

[Peanut]

Ah, well in class we're only allowed to use more literal translations - NRSV (this is the text my professor uses) NASB (this is what I use) or TNIV. However, I've gone through with a few of the major current translations (NLT, MSG, NKJV, HCSB, AMP, ESV) and they all use the same word for the the creature.

Really? Gosh, if your not going to look at the original languages (which is completely understandable and wouldn't need to be required) then I would think the logical thing to do would be to require you to look at translations besides the more literal ones. At least then you would be able to see the differences in the way the passage has been translated. It almost sounds like their championing a certain set of translations over others when, really, translations are by their very nature inferior.

But...God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Why would God command them to do that if they were incapable of it? I'm sure they have a response to that if what you said is true, but still...

Nate, your trying to inject logic and good scholarship into a group of people who believe the lost tribes of Israel crossed the Atlantic ocean in dugout canoes...Besides that Q is probably right, I think they would pull the cop out of "Our works are equally inspired." Or they might just say that command was delayed or something.

Every time I hear someone reference Augustine and allegory, I can't help but think of the allegorical interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. That put me off of allegorical interpretations for a very, very long time.

Easier? Maybe not...

I will admit that Augustine and Origen took it...well...way too far. Still, when it comes to this, I think it's a pretty good way to interpret things.

[Dante]

I just went on a walk... it was awesome (see my meds thread WAHOOO! RAPTURE!).

I was flying around this problem and suddenly realized something, I've gotten lost in the tree and ignored the forest. I think I get it. The fact that they don't know good and evil and the sin is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil makes it obvious. It has nothing to do with good and evil - it never has, it still doesn't. And now I feel stupid, as though I should have known it all from the start.

[Sammy Boy]

Nate and Atria35 - thanks. I feel slightly wiser as a result of reading and thinking about your responses.

[rocklobster]

What information does Genesis 3 give us about the identity of the being that tempted Eve? Can you locate any other passages that give further information about this being's identity?

Well, doesn't it say Satan took the form of a serpent? And let's not forget folks, Satan was an angel and the angels can take on whatever form they please (look at Isaiah when he gets prophetic abilities. They don't look anything like the winged humans we traditionally see them depicted as).

I was flying around this problem and suddenly realized something, I've gotten lost in the tree and ignored the forest. I think I get it. The fact that they don't know good and evil and the sin is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil makes it obvious. It has nothing to do with good and evil - it never has, it still doesn't. And now I feel stupid, as though I should have known it all from the start.

I think I just said that! Excellent work, Watson!

[Atria35]

Well, doesn't it say Satan took the form of a serpent? And let's not forget folks, Satan was an angel and the angels can take on whatever form they please (look at Isaiah when he gets prophetic abilities. They don't look anything like the winged humans we traditionally see them depicted as).

No, it does not say that Satan took the form of a serpant. The serpant was never Satan, and vice-versa. You're mixing that up with Paradise Lost, where MILTON says that the snake was Satan. However, the Bible says no such thing.

[Okami]

Really? Gosh, if your not going to look at the original languages (which is completely understandable and wouldn't need to be required) then I would think the logical thing to do would be to require you to look at translations besides the more literal ones. At least then you would be able to see the differences in the way the passage has been translated. It almost sounds like their championing a certain set of translations over others when, really, translations are by their very nature inferior.

Oh, we do look at the original languages (We have full classes for learning Hebrew and Greek, so we don't go in-depth in our language studies for OT/NT classes), but as for the English Bible translations they want us to use more literal translations so we can be "as close" to the original as possible within our own language, if that makes sense. Our professors understand that translations are inferior, but they're doing their best to make it easier on us. I personally do look at other translations/paraphrases, because I always have found it fascinating as to how different people translate different passages and so forth. (it would be to my OT professor's displeasure that I absolutely love the NLT, it's his least favorite of the paraphrases...)

No, it does not say that Satan took the form of a serpant. The serpant was never Satan, and vice-versa. You're mixing that up with Paradise Lost, where MILTON says that the snake was Satan. However, the Bible says no such thing.

Ding ding ding! I only wanted to point this out because in so many Christian circles, Satan = serpent and serpent = Satan. I believed it, I believed it without ever doing the research to see if the Bible actually said it. And then I was forced to do the research and I panicked when I couldn't find it. (Verses for it) So I decidedly used a verse in Job that talks about Satan roaming the earth (It was a pretty vague tie-in, but I tried to make it fit, and failed! XD) In all actuality, there's only one verse in the Bible that could possibly tie in with the serpent being Satan. Unfortunately, that too is vague when looking in-depth to it...Like I said previously, I was mindblown when I found all this out!

[Peanut]

Oh, we do look at the original languages (We have full classes for learning Hebrew and Greek, so we don't go in-depth in our language studies for OT/NT classes), but as for the English Bible translations they want us to use more literal translations so we can be "as close" to the original as possible within our own language, if that makes sense. Our professors understand that translations are inferior, but they're doing their best to make it easier on us. I personally do look at other translations/paraphrases, because I always have found it fascinating as to how different people translate different passages and so forth. (it would be to my OT professor's displeasure that I absolutely love the NLT, it's his least favorite of the paraphrases...)

Eh, I still don't like it. Though this is probably because my professors took the opposite approach.

Ding ding ding! I only wanted to point this out because in so many Christian circles, Satan = serpent and serpent = Satan. I believed it, I believed it without ever doing the research to see if the Bible actually said it. And then I was forced to do the research and I panicked when I couldn't find it. (Verses for it) So I decidedly used a verse in Job that talks about Satan roaming the earth (It was a pretty vague tie-in, but I tried to make it fit, and failed! XD) In all actuality, there's only one verse in the Bible that could possibly tie in with the serpent being Satan. Unfortunately, that too is vague when looking in-depth to it...Like I said previously, I was mindblown when I found all this out!

I would be careful here, since there still is some evidence that the Jews held that said serpent was the devil or a demon. John, for instance, uses this imagery (and the same word that is used to refer to the serpent in Genesis) in relation to demonic beasts and even Satan himself. It's even reasonable to assume they would have believed this when Genesis. Think about it, these people likely had no clue about the venom that some snakes have therefore, it can be assumed that death by snake bite would seen as the result of a curse or demonic influence. In other words, without gaining a full understanding of the culture of that time, I don't think we can definitively answer "this is the devil" or "this is not the devil." I think this is a case where both sides have a pretty good argument for their interpretation.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

No, it does not say that Satan took the form of a serpant. The serpant was never Satan, and vice-versa. You're mixing that up with Paradise Lost, where MILTON says that the snake was Satan. However, the Bible says no such thing.

Yep. Never in the Genesis account is Satan equated to the serpent. In fact (and if this has been thrown in already, please toss rotten veggies at me) several of my theology teachers at school advised that the creation accounts in Genesis were actually written in a form of Hebraic poetry typically reserved for allegory - going back to Augustine.

I love that guy.

By the way, the fruit wasn't an apple either. Though a lot of people who are showing the account visually have taken to using pears because it looks like the female body (In a... weird kind of way, I guess, if you squint your eyes and the room is somewhat dark) - and you know us Christians... We're so very ashamed of sex.

[Peanut]

Yep. Never in the Genesis account is Satan equated to the serpent. In fact (and if this has been thrown in already, please toss rotten veggies at me) several of my theology teachers at school advised that the creation accounts in Genesis were actually written in a form of Hebraic poetry typically reserved for allegory - going back to Augustine.

I love that guy.

*throws rotten veggies at you* Kidding of course.

I think if there is one thing that can be taken away from this thread, its that Augustine was a pretty smart guy. Sure, he might have taken certain things to far...but I'd still say he's a pretty smart guy.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

*throws rotten veggies at you* Kidding of course.

I think if there is one thing that can be taken away from this thread, its that Augustine was a pretty smart guy. Sure, he might have taken certain things to far...but I'd still say he's a pretty smart guy.

The Allegory vs Literalism view of the creation account has been argued for centuries. I think it was Augustine who said something to the effect of "Never let your view on the creation story be taken so seriously that if it is disproven you lose the entire basis of your faith." Honestly, I think that bit of wisdom needs to be the preface of this entire thread.

[Nate]

Though a lot of people who are showing the account visually have taken to using pears because it looks like the female body (In a... weird kind of way, I guess, if you squint your eyes and the room is somewhat dark) - and you know us Christians... We're so very ashamed of sex.

If anyone remember Rudyard Kipling, he would write a series of books called "Just So Stories" about how, for example, the leopard got its spots and so on. I've heard many people who study mythology say just that, that Genesis 2/3 is pretty much a "Just So Story" regarding puberty and sexual maturity. And also why snakes slither on the ground.

Also, interesting fact, "satan" is actually a word that means "to obstruct/oppose" in Hebrew. "Satan" is used as a verb in many Old Testament passages, not referring to a being, but an action. "Ha-Satan" is a term for a being, translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser." Ha-Satan is not a name, but a title, much like "President" or "Mayor."

Remember that though we use many of their writings, the Jews have vastly different beliefs about things than we do. They believe ha-Satan is actually a being doing God's will, tempting humans into sin as a test, so that he can then accuse us of wrongdoing in front of God...as seen in Job. They believe, however, that this does not make ha-Satan evil, because ha-Satan wants us to resist the temptation. It is just his job to accuse us if we fail.

Remember also that as a Christian concept, Satan does not really exist in the Old Testament, not explicitly. God's big adversaries at that time were other gods from other religions, like Ba'al, and other nations. Still, as Peanut said, there is decent evidence of serpent = Satan, even if not directly stated. Really, I don't let it bother me too much. Since I don't take it literally and all. :p