Originally posted by JS357
"Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis."
How you use the word "mythical" or "myth" is critical to understanding what you mean here.
Dictionary.com has as the first definition,"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, espec , I think you actually are reading the text of Genesis on original sin, as myth.
"Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis."
How you use the word "mythical" or "myth" is critical to understanding what you mean here.
Dictionary.com has as the first definition,"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature".
Careful readings of the words "traditional" and "legendary" need to be made, to recognize that they do not necessarily mean "false."
I think that I have heard before the the word "myth" may or may not mean actually an historical matter.
I meant that my first inclination was to not regard the story of Adam and his wife between two trees -
the tree of life and
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as an historical event.
I suppose I regarded allegorical and historical as a strict dichotomy. I changed my view latter that an actual historical event
also can be allegorical according to something God wants to reveal to man.
The "phenomenon of nature" in this case, might be our sense that there are actions and situations that are right or wrong, that we should or should not do or allow.
Is this more or less what you mean? If so, I think you actually are reading the text of Genesis on original sin, as myth.
I think you would have to explain a little more to me what you mean by these last two sentences.
I only use the phrase "original sin" to communicate to the person who takes the initiative to use it in discussion with me. The phrase "original sin" never comes up in my theological speaking initiated by me.
There are traditional phrases that others have used that I never have seen the need to use. I may think of them as a bit misleading or inadaquate to the level of understanding I think I have of the divine revelation.
Then there are other theological phrases which I
do retain, that may not be in the Bible. But for one reason or another, I think they are pretty good expressions.
I have never warmed up to the phrase "original sin". I may not count it as completely wrong. But I find it perhaps misleading. Before Adam sinned, Satan who tempted Adam sinned. I guess the real "original sin" is that which was done by Satan.
Maybe this has nothing to do with what you're asking. I read the text of Genesis as an exposure of the basic problem between the created man and God. Man stepped out from under the direct authority of God, and joined the opposition party already in existence in opposition to God.
The choice was presented to man. Man was innocent and in a neutral position between God and Satan, God's enemy. This was a triangular situation in the universe.
At one point of the triangle was God signified in
"the tree of life". And at the other point of the triangle was Satan represented by
"the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". At the third point of the triangle between God and Satan was the created man.
Man was not created in need of forgiveness.
Man was not created in need of redemption.
Man was created under the direct authority of God yet presented with a choice to deepen that relationship or to withdraw from it.
When I mused about this, I thought "How could such a profound matter be wrapped up in two TREES ?" It seemed like a child's story, as other things in the Bible seemed to me as child's stories.
Eventually, I realized that often we humans mistake God's simplicity for naivete. God in His wisdom has His way to communicate to man down through the ages, in terms that the most people can grasp, profound truths.
I do believe that I am reading history arranged by God with a future view to communicate truths of His eternal purpose to the maximal amount of human cultures.
The fact of the matter is that elsewhere God assigned deep meaning to physical objects. The ark of the covenant is the most striking example to come to mind. A man was killed because of the unprescribed manner in which he touched the ark of the covenant.
Temporarily then, God actually assigned allegorical significance to physical objects. I stress
temporarily. And
temporarily it could be a life and death situation as to how the Israelites interacted with that physical object. The ark of the covenant is one example. The brass serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness is another.
If God would and could do that with the ark of the covenant and the brass serpent, I see no reason why He would and could not do so with two trees in Genesis.
God's purpose was to enter into Adam had he eaten of
the tree of life. Man's curse commenced when the Satanic nature entered into him upon his eating of the other tree -
"the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
Adam was innocent and neutral up until the moment he made the choice to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And the human race has somehow been poisoned - Satanified, ever since.
The tree of life on the other hand is now available to man in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And His redemptive death has removed the terrible barrier to divine life that God erected the moment man had become aligned with the Devil.
"And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever -
Therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken.
So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He plaved the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (Gen. 3:22-24)
After man is infested with the paristic evil nature of Satan, the previously innocent and neutral man now has God erect a terrible barrier between Himself and man. That is a threefold demand.
Man is fallen short of the righteousness of God.
Man is fallen short of the holiness of God.
Man is fallen short of the glory of God.
The sword, I believe, signifies God's righteousness.
The flame of the sword corresponds to God's holiness.
The cherubim of glory corresponds to the glory of God.
The threefold demand of God upon the fallen man are met only in the redemptive life, death and resurrection of the Son of God - Jesus Christ.