Why were Adam and Eve cast out of Eden?

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

Oddly enough, the Jews do not. It’s as if you’re adding a layer of meaning that wasn’t there until later and still isn’t there for some of the people who own the story at least as much as you do.

These Jews beg to differ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQdRRd_y40w
Besides the prophecies of the Old Testament say that the Gentiles will be saved, and then Paul says many more of the Jews before Jesus returns. Their own book says that we’re right.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

These Jews beg to differ.

Jews for Jesus? You’re seriously introducing that as a rebuttal?

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

Jews for Jesus? You’re seriously introducing that as a rebuttal?

Sure Dr. James Tour has a testimony up on the same channel too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNGLZvtRoiU

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@thoughtful

Sure Dr. James Tour has a testimony up on the same channel too.

I lurk in the background of his bible study on Sundays, I know he gets some criticism on PS for his views, but he is anointed, I find no fault in his talks regarding the bible and Jesus…Messianic Jew is how he identifies…he is super nice too, have had a couple email exchanges with him. He is how I came across @swamidass and PS, from one of their talks.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Faizal_Ali

No, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that. The only way that could be possible is if they were secretly eating from it, and God didn’t know.

@Faizal_Ali

There would be no reason for Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Life.

The only tree barred from their diet was the Tree of Good/Evil.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Mark10.45

have had a couple email exchanges with him.

So have I.

@gbrooks9

There would be no reason for Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Life.

The only tree barred from their diet was the Tree of Good/Evil.

The story does not say why they did not eat from it, but God clearly believed they had not.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Faizal_Ali

… but God clearly believed they had not.

@Faizal_Ali

What verse do you use to conclude that God believed they had not?

My position is that they could have been eating it daily … but once they stopped eating it … their mortality would begin!

[Faizal_Ali]

Maybe the New International Version is easier to understand:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

What verse do you use to conclude that God believed they had not?

I’ve already quoted this at least twice:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Faizal_Ali

I’ve already quoted this at least twice:

@Faizal_Ali

This verse works just as well with premise for STOPPING the consumption from the tree.

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

This verse works just as well with premise for STOPPING the consumption from the tree.

No, If that were the case it would say “…lest he continue to put forth his hand…” or …lest he again put forth his hand…"

The interpretation anyone who read this story for the first time and had never heard of the Christian interpretationwould be that they had not yet eaten from the tree of life.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

Is there a translation anywhere that says what George wants it to say? You seem heavy on methodological criticisms and light on actual arguments.

I have no idea if @gbrooks9’s interpretation is supported.

However, the methodological critique is valid and speaks precisely to the argument:

@dga471

Not to mention that Faizal quoted a translation from 1611. That’s like a creationist quoting Darwin to argue against evolution.

@swamidass

The wrong approach is to just arbitrarily pick the translation that suits your reading. Instead, you have to actually look at the original language and the history of interpretation.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

Yes I do have evidence, and so do you

Don’t think so. Is there a translation that doesn’t say the same thing the quoted ones do? I don’t think anyone, especially @Faizal_Ali, is picking between translations here.

@swamidass

I have no idea if @gbrooks9’s interpretation is supported.

Find a translation that can be interpreted that way. Or do all translations require Hebrew scholars to gloss them from the Hebrew text? They seem quite consistent, which would suggest to me that all translations are bad.

[Faizal_Ali]

@dga471

These are all strawmen arguments, since no self-respecting Bible scholar would choose The Message, The Amplified Bible, The Good News Version, or International Children’s Bible to make any sort of point about the proper exegesis of the Hebrew text. They’re devotional translations (each with their supporters and detractors) and so have little value for scholarly study.

And, to be clear, I did not mean to suggest otherwise.

That said, I continue to await a scholarly translation that would contradict or weaken the interpretation that arises from a close, unbiased reading of the standard and common English translations.

@dga471

Why would that be a more legitimate or preferred reading rather than others, given that the text wasn’t meant to be read by such a person in the first place?

Do we know who it was meant to be read by?

@Jordan

is more like “unencumbered by any belief system that privileges Genesis above ancient near eastern mythology”?

No. I am trying to figure out the reading that would be best based on the text itself. An example would be how we understand the bare plot details of the The Iliad or the The Odyssey. This would not depend no how we “privilege” such texts.

@Jordan

I’m afraid I don’t see it. How would God changing his mind from immediate death to exile-followed-by-death depart wildly from the text?

OK, I suppose the proscription against eating the fruit could be read as a threat rather than a warning. “Eat that fruit and I’ll kill you” rather than “Eat that fruit and it will kill you.”

However, Eve’s conversation with the serpent makes more sense if she understood the latter meaning.

In any event, whether he lied or or changed his mind, he did not speak the truth. And at the very least he lied by omission when he did not tell A&E that they would gain knowledge of good and evil if they ate the fruit. It was the serpent who told them, and he spoke the truth.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Faizal_Ali

So the way things seem to work here is that whatever “condition” one is in when one eats from the Tree of Life is how one will remain. Adam and Even could then have been eating from it all along in their sinless state, but now God has to stop them from eating the fruit so they don’t stay “frozen” in a sinful state. OK, except, that’s what ends up happening, anyway, until Jesus comes along to provide redemption. Does this mean if they had eaten from the Tree of Life after eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Jesus sacrifice would not have worked? So confusing.

Yes! This is what I had discovered earlier: Actually they weren’t “frozen” in their sinful state. God had already given them forgiveness and grace. But the reality of that had to be fulfilled in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Otherwise they would have been living forever in a state of forgiveness, but in a world that had the effects of sin. God loves the world also and wanted to redeem it as a whole. Plus God wanted to reveal Himself further through the Holy Spirit.

All of this meant that the tree of life has to wait until God redeems the world and makes a new heavens and earth.

@Faizal_Ali

And at the very least he lied by omission when he did not tell A&E that they would gain knowledge of good and evil if they ate the fruit. It was the serpent who told them, and he spoke the truth.

What do you think the naming of the tree was FOR? Of course, He did tell them - it was the name of the tree. But that doesn’t not mean that knowing evil is good. If we could rid the world of evil, I’m sure we’d all do so. Then we wouldn’t KNOW it anymore.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

But that doesn’t not mean that knowing evil is good. If we could rid the world of evil, I’m sure we’d all do so. Then we wouldn’t KNOW it anymore.

You seem to be equivocating on the word “know”. Does knowing evil make you evil? But God knows evil (he said so in the verses we’re arguing about), and he isn’t evil. One could argue that in order to know good one must also know evil, or there’s nothing to compare good to.

[Faizal_Ali]

@thoughtful

Yes! This is what I had discovered earlier: Actually they weren’t “frozen” in their sinful state. God had already given them forgiveness and grace. But the reality of that had to be fulfilled in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Otherwise they would have been living forever in a state of forgiveness, but in a world that had the effects of sin. God loves the world also and wanted to redeem it as a whole. Plus God wanted to reveal Himself further through the Holy Spirit.

All of this meant that the tree of life has to wait until God redeems the world and makes a new heavens and earth.

Please quote where Genesis 2-3 says any of this. TIA.

@thoughtful

What do you think the naming of the tree was FOR? Of course, He did tell them - it was the name of the tree.

Again, please quote where this is stated or implied. If they didn’t know what good and evil was until they ate from the tree, what good would it do telling them “That’s the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”? It’d be like saying “That’s the Tree of Orkleborkle and Geegaw.”

@thoughtful

But that doesn’t not mean that knowing evil is good. If we could rid the world of evil, I’m sure we’d all do so. Then we wouldn’t KNOW it anymore.

I could live with that.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

You seem to be equivocating on the word “know”. Does knowing evil make you evil? But God knows evil (he said so in the verses we’re arguing about), and he isn’t evil. One could argue that in order to know good one must also know evil, or there’s nothing to compare good to.

This gets into Euthyphro’s Dilemma again.

Because God is good from eternity, as long as there is nothing else outside of Him, only God exists. Only good exists. God would know that for Him to create beings that could have a loving relationship with Him, they could also choose evil.

He could choose not to create those relational beings. Or He could choose to create them and tell them they have a choice to know only Him who is good, or to know both good and evil. Because God who is good already exists, they do not have to know evil to know good.

Once the relational beings God created chose to know evil, God could have separated them from Himself to remain just and good. Or He could have decided to have the relationship He created them for because He was unwilling not to love - it was His nature. To do that, only an eternally good, as well as a being like He created, could repair the separation that otherwise would be necessary. Hence Jesus.

[John_Harshman]

None of that bears the slightest relevance to what I said. Do you agree that God knows good and evil, and that by eating from the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve became like God in that respect?