The point of the tree of good and evil?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
How do you know the canon contains all the texts authored by G-d, and excludes all those that are not? The Canon has been maintained by human institutions. These institutions disagree on a few texts, admittedly not the ones concerning Lilith.

Your faith in the "pure word," in addition to side-stepping the cultural void between what you bring to the text a ...[text shortened]... ssion of oral to written, and the preservation, transmission, and authenticity of the written.

"Lilith" I don't really buy into that story very bizarre. I however don't totally discount the apocrypha and extra canonical books. James quotes from the book of Enoch. Some my be good for historical value for sure.

I was thinking that maybe the knowledge of good & evil in the sense of being a judge and being able to discern the difference might have been a prerogative of God? This is one of the stories I've struggled with most.

God put the tree there. God knew man would fail. So why? I don't think anyone can answer this.

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
"Lilith" I don't really buy into that story very bizarre. I however don't totally discount the apocrypha and extra canonical books. James quotes from the book of Enoch. Some my be good for historical value for sure.

I was thinking that maybe the knowledge of good & evil in the sense of being a judge and being able to discern the difference might have bee ...[text shortened]... ree there. God knew man would fail. So why? I don't think anyone can answer this.

Manny

I still don't understand why you say that man "would fail". Adam was only one man and that does not mean that just any man that God created would follow Adam's mistake. What do you base this on? Why would God purposely create man knowing he would fail? That would not be loving on his part.
Did not the vast majority of the angels that he created stay faithful to him and not follow satan?
Again we are all created to make free decisisions and Adam just choose a very selfish one as did satan.
A question to ask yourself is what would you have done in Adam's place?

Originally posted by galveston75
I still don't understand why you say that man "would fail". Adam was only one man and that does not mean that just any man that God created would follow Adam's mistake. What do you base this on? Why would God purposely create man knowing he would fail? That would not be loving on his part.
Did not the vast majority of the angels that he created stay f ...[text shortened]... one as did satan.
A question to ask yourself is what would you have done in Adam's place?

Is God all knowing? Yes or a No. If so (yes) then (He) God knew Adam would fail. That's what I'm saying. If God is all knowing than he knew Adam would fail this temptation. Good question as far as what would I have done?





Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Is God all knowing? Yes or a No. If so (yes) then (He) God knew Adam would fail. That's what I'm saying. If God is all knowing than he knew Adam would fail this temptation. Good question as far as what would I have done?





Manny

So all knowing means he knows the future? Does he know what you'll be doing tomorrow? When you get up in the morning does he already know what your going to have for breakfast? Your smart so think on this and do some scriptual research...

Originally posted by menace71
"Lilith" I don't really buy into that story very bizarre. I however don't totally discount the apocrypha and extra canonical books. James quotes from the book of Enoch. Some my be good for historical value for sure.

I was thinking that maybe the knowledge of good & evil in the sense of being a judge and being able to discern the difference might have bee ree there. God knew man would fail. So why? I don't think anyone can answer this.

Manny

==============================================
"Lilith" I don't really buy into that story very bizarre. I however don't totally discount the apocrypha and extra canonical books. James quotes from the book of Enoch. Some my be good for historical value for sure.
=============================

It is a point that apocryphal books are quoted as pagan poets. And some songs are quoted. Paul quotes an Epicurean philosophical saying.

Peter refers to Tartaras, a concept of Greek mythology.

But that is a little different. Where is a quote about Lilith in the Hebrew canon ??

But that Holy Spirit could inspire prophetic writers to borrow a saying from non-canonical book.


=============================
I was thinking that maybe the knowledge of good & evil in the sense of being a judge and being able to discern the difference might have been a prerogative of God? This is one of the stories I've struggled with most.

God put the tree there. God knew man would fail. So why? I don't think anyone can answer this.
=============================

Can you blame God's foreknowledge of Him ? I am not sure about saying that He put it there that man would fail. I might have more confidence to assert that He made preparations in His divine foreknowledge that man either would or might fail.

But I quite agree that it is hard to answer. I think we tend to want to complain a little against a being whose understanding is without limit.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
How do you know the canon contains all the texts authored by G-d, and excludes all those that are not? The Canon has been maintained by human institutions. These institutions disagree on a few texts, admittedly not the ones concerning Lilith.

Your faith in the "pure word," in addition to side-stepping the cultural void between what you bring to the text a ...[text shortened]... ssion of oral to written, and the preservation, transmission, and authenticity of the written.

============================================
How do you know the canon contains all the texts authored by G-d, and excludes all those that are not? The Canon has been maintained by human institutions. These institutions disagree on a few texts, admittedly not the ones concerning Lilith.
=====================================

This work was done for us by the ancient people of God. They argued, they discerened, they trecognized the inspired books and they arrived at the canon.

I don't really think this is work that has to be done by us today at all.

I don't think they bestowed canonicity upon books. I think they recognized which books were authoritative.


===================================
Your faith in the "pure word," in addition to side-stepping the cultural void between what you bring to the text and the world of the ancient Near East, relies upon the resolution of certain historical questions concerning the transmission of oral to written, and the preservation, transmission, and authenticity of the written.
=======================================

I don't believing in the inspired an authoritatiive books is side steeping cultural issues. There are plenty of them to discuss without shoe horning Lilith into Genesis.

I think the account probably was passed down to latter generations by none other than Adam himself. It is logical that as the account was transmitted through not only Hebrew culture but human culture, it was embellished. Remember that Adam was not a Jew per se. This was before the call of Abraham. This is not a story only of the beginning of the Jews. It is an account of the beginning of mankind.

That includes me. So I have to reject any insinuation that this is Near Eastern story that has nothing to do with anyone but Near Eastern people.

That the word of God is pure is a concept within the very same writings we are discussing, the Hebrews canon - the Old Testament.

Originally posted by menace71
"Lilith" I don't really buy into that story very bizarre. I however don't totally discount the apocrypha and extra canonical books. James quotes from the book of Enoch. Some my be good for historical value for sure.

The story of Onan is bizarre. We need better criteria than that for discerning the canon.

Originally posted by jaywill
This work was done for us by the ancient people of God. They argued, they discerened, they trecognized the inspired books and they arrived at the canon.

Did they? The history you present here would be hard to substantiate.

Originally posted by jaywill
That includes me. So I have to reject any insinuation that this is Near Eastern story that has nothing to do with anyone but Near Eastern people.

That it is a Near Eastern story is such a simple and obvious fact, that I cannot fathom any disagreement on that point. If not Near Eastern, then where did it originate? Please illuminate.


Local knowledge always has potential benefits for people elsewhere, but when the knowledge is divorced from its origin and context, it becomes distorted, misunderstood, and ultimately of value too marginal to be worthy of notice.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think the account probably was passed down to latter generations by none other than Adam himself.

The story was passed down by a metaphor?

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't believing in the inspired an authoritatiive books is side steeping cultural issues.

Failing to recognize the cultural lenses through which you view these ancient texts is to render yourself an incompetent reader.

Originally posted by menace71
....

God put the tree there. God knew man would fail. So why? I don't think anyone can answer this.

Manny

The stories in the OT show that the ancient Jews neither thought of God as all-knowing nor presented God as all-knowing. It's quite the opposite, but it takes actually reading the stories in their context to logically determine that.

For example (and there are many other examples), after Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they become ashamed and hide themselves. God goes walking through the Garden, does not see Adam, and asks "Where are you?"

Why does God ask where the heck Adam is? Because God does not know where Adam is. Why does God ask Adam "Who told you that you were naked?" Because God does not know that Adam had eaten of the fruit.

The OT tells of a dynamic relationship between the ancient Jews and their God, and neither knows what the other is going to do next. God is not all-knowing - at least not according to the Bible.

Originally posted by galveston75
So all knowing means he knows the future? Does he know what you'll be doing tomorrow? When you get up in the morning does he already know what your going to have for breakfast? Your smart so think on this and do some scriptual research...

God knows yes what you are going to eat for breakfast tomorrow. If indeed God is all knowing. Your smart think about it do some scriptural research and you will see. 🙂 Unless your God is not all knowing?







Manny

Originally posted by Badwater
The stories in the OT show that the ancient Jews neither thought of God as all-knowing nor presented God as all-knowing. It's quite the opposite, but it takes actually reading the stories in their context to logically determine that.

For example (and there are many other examples), after Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they become ashamed and hide themselves ...[text shortened]... he other is going to do next. God is not all-knowing - at least not according to the Bible.

If you read it that way then yes that is hard to argue.






Manny

Originally posted by menace71
God knows yes what you are going to eat for breakfast tomorrow. If indeed God is all knowing. Your smart think about it do some scriptural research and you will see. 🙂 Unless your God is not all knowing?







Manny

So why does all knowing mean that you know the future? Where in the bible does it say that he knows the future? Or do the scriptures simple describe him making the future work out for his plans?