Replies

Thank-you for your thoughtful reply. I have seen one suggested translation, by the way, that replaces "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "if you eat of its fruit, you will be doomed to die" (emphasis added). I tend to think that this translation, while a valiant effort to reconcile the conflict between the threat of death and the subsequent long life of Adam, is impermissibly loose.

It is a difficult passage, but it seems to me consistent with the otherwise curious and anomalous juxtapositions found in Genesis 1-3. For example:

-- the patent metaphoric phenomena (e.g., "trees" that stand in for the conceptual rudiments of life and the knowledge of good and evil, temptation anthropomorphized as a serpent) are contrasted for apparently deliberate effect against mundane natural phenomena (herbs, rivers, deltas, birds, etc.);

-- woman is described as being created from a rib, a piece of the structural cage surrounding the heart of man, and this description is followed immediately by a description of marriage as the leaving of father and mother and the cleaving to wife (what father and mother?);

-- the lack of death prior to the threat in 2:17, and the consequent inexplicability of God threatening death to someone who would otherwise have no concept of it;

-- the very civilized references to gold, bdellium, onyx, and lapis lazuli in the garden, elemental basics of currency and ornamentation for which Adam would have no use or knowledge.

The passage is also of a piece with the notion that "Adam" is a representative whole in Genesis 1-3, and not a discrete individual. Although I have seen efforts to parse and distinguish the generic use of adam as the Hebrew common noun for man from a more specific use of Adam as a singular individual in these early chapters, they are, for me, rather unpersuasive.

I therefore view the passage as of a piece with the metaphoric whole of the Genesis creation account. In simplistic terms, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the development of sentience in man, for the appearance of the capacity to exercise free will. And Elsie, I do not view it as merely an act of generic disobedience, since this capacity to choose wrong is substantively broader than ordinary sins of omission and commission -- it is an earmark of human capacity, an ability to, by deliberation, distinguish between right and wrong and choose to perceive wrong as right.

The ultimate metaphoric suggestion seems to be that, when we choose evil, fellowship with God is broken resulting in spiritual death. And this metaphoric interpretation certainly appears consistent with the recitation of the long and productive life of the discrete individual, Adam, which commences as a distinct demarcation in Genesis 4.

The death referenced in 2:17, then, suggests an estrangement from God borne of the capcity to perceive good and evil, not a physical or biological death (immediate or delayed).

This is also entirely consistent with the later appearance of Christ as the sacrificial path back to fellowship with God. In short, as Paul stated in Ephesians: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; . . . Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved).”

-- woman is described as being created from a rib, a piece of the structural cage surrounding the heart of man, and this description is followed immediately by a description of marriage as the leaving of father and mother and the cleaving to wife (what father and mother?);

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just dealing with this ONE example for illustration purposes, here's the issue. You are interpreting these passages from the first person perspective. From the perspective of Adam and / or Eve as the authors.

To the best of my knowledge, no biblical scholar attributes the first book of the Bible to Adam / Eve. It is often referred to as part of the "Penteteuch" or the First Five Books. (IF I remember correctly), it is attributed to Moses, or some other ancient author who was far removed from the events of the Garden. However, as with nearly all cultures, stories, commentaries, songs, and other means of transmitting the culture were **likely** written down by the author if the First five books.

So, from that perspective, inserting LATER learned knowledge and understanding (i.e. hindsight is 20/20) would not have been unusual. Conteporaneous references to leaving mother and father in reference to the importance of marriage would not have been unusual to mix in with the earlier understandings and thereby "completing" the story.

Understanding both the author and the context does not make any of the references you refer to unusual. They would only be unusual coming from Adam or Eve CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the events. Potentially, they could have come from Adam or Eve (though unlikely) far later in their lives after they gained greater understanding themselves.

These are not inconsistencies when you consider that the Old Testament to the Bible was specifically written originally for the descendents of Abraham / Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, the "metaphoric phenomena" you refer to are only metaphor if you don't believe that God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and they were given specific instructions not to eat of the fruit of a particular tree which they then disobeyed. That is the crux of the "original sin" and if you don't believe in the "original sin" then you have excused the need for a Savior to be reconciled BACK to God. I.e. the division was caused by the "original sin" and the price was a life for that original sin to be RECONCILED BACK to God. To be able to RESTORE that relationship with God.

In the process, Christians believe there is a savior in the person Jesus Christ who lived a blameless life, and because he was both flesh, and lived a blameless life, he was a proper substitute for the "original sin." For that matter, he was the replacement for all of the substitute animal deaths (animal sacrifices) that were previously used to atone for sin.

Let me be a little more blunt, if you're looking for a reason NOT to accept that you are a sinner and in need of Salvation, treating the Biblical account of the original sin as "metaphorical" certainly excsues the need for Salvation. If someone doesn't want to place their faith and trust in an intelligent designer, that is a conscious decision. There is no need for silly rationalizations.

For me, it is easier to believe in an intelligent designer than the spontaneous, miraculous, fanatical believe that out of nothing, everything suddenly "was" (Big Bang), and then from that nothing that become something, that dead matter "miraculously" created life in itself. And then from that disordered chaos, enough magically miraculous accidents took place to create the plethora of species, and then from that miraculous set of accidents that there is no fossil record to account for it. And then from that magically miraculous and mystical variation of life, that somehow a sentient life form emerged, and then from that, more and more complex mechanisms were created from vastly infinite accidents. Then you have more faith than I will EVER be able to believe in! In the pure, raw, unadulterated, fanatical blind faith category, I'm too weak minded to have that much fanatically zealous faith!

If your purpose is to find a way not to face your need for Salvation, then that is your decision. There is no need to rationalize the Genesis account away to do that. Just simply be big enough to refuse to accept the Salvation that is freely given. At least then when we ALL stand before God, the God of the account in Genesis, you can then admit that you flatly rejected his account in Genesis. At least that is a more "honest" position that trying to rationalize what Genesis says away.

"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "if you eat of its fruit, you will be doomed to die"

And then, possibly, since ADAM was with EVE, and saw that she had eaten and DIDN'T drop over 'dead', perhaps he thought, "Maybe this serpent was right."

Viola! Unbelief and Doubt, all mixed together, flashes thru his mind.

there was immediate physical death on the day they ate from the tree. It was the death of the animal God used to cover Adam and Eve when He confronted them in the Garden.

Adam and Eve would have died that day had God not provided a sacrifice for them. A wondeful picture of Christ.

JM