Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Adam and Eve have become as Gods? Message-ID: Date: 9 Apr 91 08:02:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Lines: 102 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu > Just a little question. On the TV today, and in several >books, and in several discussions with several different religious >groups, I here that Satans big lie to Eve was that "in the day ye >eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as >gods, knowing good and evil"(Gen 3:5) But I find that in verse 22 >it says, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of >us (gods) to know good and evil..." > Is it true that some religions teach that that was one of >Satans lies told to Adam and Eve, or am I hard of hearing? Has >anyone else heard, read or taught this, and if so why? > You've probably heard correctly, but as a lot of people seem to have short attention spans when reading the Bible what they told you isn't right. People teach with certainty things which are very uncertain. Its just a case of people not being comfortable with ambiguities, grey areas and uncertainties. The passage is full of those marvellous inconsistencies which makes being a person of faith so wonderful. I have yet to see a completely consistent interpretation of this passage and after studying the passage myself I am convinced I never will. >steve > >flaco@ucsd.edu > >[My view of the situation is that the serpent told a half-truth. God >originally said then if they eat the fruit, they will be doomed to >die. There are two basic problems that have been brought up in >previous discussions. One is that God said "in the day that you eat ^^^ see later comments >of it you shall die", and of course that didn't happen. Speiser's >commentary on Gen. (Anchor Bible) says it should be translated "you >will be doomed to death". >The construct is an "infinitive absolute", ^^^^^^^^^ I understand that you are not using the word construct in the normal sense that a Hebrew grammar would. >which he says can take on a variety of shadings. It's typically >translated "you will surely die," The infinitive absolute (as used in this passage) is generally to emphasise something. We might say something like ``you really will die'' where we are emphasising the fact that they would die, just in case they doubted the fact. The traditional rendering of ``you will surely die'' reflects the meaning resonably well. The ``doomed to death'' rendering that Speiser gives probably couldn't be justified in a translation of the passage but could be used a paraphrase such as the Living Bible or if there was a J.B. Phillips version of the Old Testament. It certainly captures some of the intent but the use of ``doomed'' would make me uneasy in using the phrase in a translation. >but Speiser says "you will be doomed >to death" is another possible meaning. Since they didn't actually >die, and the author of Gen. certainly didn't consider God to be a >liar, he probably meant something like "doomed to death". > Most English translations say something like ``... in the day that you eat of it you will surely die....'' but the Hebrew does not contain the definite article before day. That is normally added so that the closely literal rendering does not offend our English grammar. They way most English translations render the Hebrew gives the impression that they would die on *the* day that they ate of the tree, but there is no the before day. Actually, in my opinion, the rendering ``in the day'' misses the point of the Hebrew, it appears to me to be saying something close to the English use of ``when''. >The second problem is the one you mention, namely that they do in fact >learn something, as the serpent promised. My view of this is that the >serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they >would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would >not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to >them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. >And second, >the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It caused innocent sexual >relations to turn into shameful ones. There are three major interpretations of the Genesis 3 passage generally known at the Ethical, Intellectual and Sexual interpretations. That you claim that innocent sexual relations were changed by eating the fruit is in accord with the sexual interpretation. But very serious objections can be raised against it. As the poster quoted above, God says that they have become like one of us. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the Bible that God is a sexual being. There is no evidence either for or against the claim that Adam and Eve had normal marital sexual relations while in the garden. The text is silent on this point. Just another point on this passage, the chapter division of the text are of late Christian origin and some times do not accurately reflect the natural division of the text. In this passage you should read the last verse of Chapter 2, about them being naked and not ashamed, as the opening of this passage. Splitting it away into another chapter prevents people from reading the passage as intended. > >--clh] Bill Rea -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------