In the Beginning...

[Arakhor]

God was giving Adam a chance to "save face" and tell the truth.

Given that I have known my own father to do exactly that, I don't see that as an unreasonable explanation, even without assuming that God is omniscient.

'like us' meant there were multiple gods

There's a perfect example of you absolutely literally interpreting the text (Genesis 3:22 for those keeping track) because it suits your narrative.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Bible does say that... The Bible says Adam hid and God didn't know where he was so he called out for him.

Can you quote the passage that says that God didn't know where Adam was?

 

[Agent327]

No, because it nowhere says so.

Given that I have known my own father to do exactly that, I don't see that as an unreasonable explanation, even without assuming that God is omniscient.

I don't think that idea, which is a modern concept, can actually be found in the Bible. (It's also entirely absent form any other pre-modern religious or mythological writings.)

But the idea of God acting like a parent is actually quite a helpful tool. He does so quite often, even to the point of blind outrage against those who obstruct His children (without bothering to listen to the other side of the story, but simply siding with your offspring no matter what). Mind you, he's a very old fashioned kind of dad. But that fits the story.

There's a perfect example of you absolutely literally interpreting the text (Genesis 3:22 for those keeping track) because it suits your narrative.

Actually, it is ignoring the rather obvious pluralis maiestatis - also used by monarchs and such. It doesn't mean that the monarch (or God) is two or more, it means they are Majesty, and therefore plural. So, in fact it's not literal interpretation at all, it's grammatical incomprehension.

 

[Arakhor]

Or, you know, he's using the royal 'we'.

I already mentioned that point, but not in Latin.

 

[Berzerker]

There's a perfect example of you absolutely literally interpreting the text (Genesis 3:22 for those keeping track) because it suits your narrative.

My narrative has nothing to do with how many gods there were in the Garden. My narrative is Genesis describes events in our solar system prior to the appearance of land and life. You know, "in the beginning"?

Here's what you said:

If you're going to be absolutely literal in one place, you should apply that consistently.

and my response:

why cant we take the Bible literally sometimes and not others? Is this some rule you just invented? I dont know where you got the idea I take the Bible literally, I dont even believe the days of creation are actually days.

<crickets>

Can you quote the passage that says that God didn't know where Adam was?

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, it is ignoring the rather obvious pluralis maiestatis - also used by monarchs and such. It doesn't mean that the monarch (or God) is two or more, it means they are Majesty, and therefore plural. So, in fact it's not literal interpretation at all, it's grammatical incomprehension.

It means the monarch and God, not or god. And monarchs represented states so "we" could refer to the monarch and his subjects, etc. In either case the term refers to more than 1 person...

 

[Arakhor]

Well, if you don't take the story literally, then why are you taking the story literally to insist that there were multiple gods and God didn't know where Adam was? It's still pretty silly either way.

 

[timtofly]

I don't think that idea, which is a modern concept, can actually be found in the Bible. (It's also entirely absent form any other pre-modern religious or mythological writings.)

But the idea of God acting like a parent is actually quite a helpful tool. He does so quite often, even to the point of blind outrage against those who obstruct His children (without bothering to listen to the other side of the story, but simply siding with your offspring no matter what). Mind you, he's a very old fashioned kind of dad. But that fits the story.



Actually, it is ignoring the rather obvious pluralis maiestatis - also used by monarchs and such. It doesn't mean that the monarch (or God) is two or more, it means they are Majesty, and therefore plural. So, in fact it's not literal interpretation at all, it's grammatical incomprehension.

The use of rhetoric has been around since at least Aristotle. I doubt he invented it, but just figured out how to use it. I am not sure why you would deny it to the editors of the Hebrew text.

If you recognize God as a parent, what keeps God from being a scientist or philosopher?

 

[Lexicus]

The use of rhetoric has been around since at least Aristotle.

Going by Aristotle's own definition rhetoric has surely been around since the beginning of language. Systematic investigation of rhetoric is a different and more recent matter.

 

[El_Machinae]

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

You need to read into the text to assume that God didn't know where they were. Your paraphrase that I quoted is not a precise one. It's a plausible paraphrase, but it's not precise.

 

[Agent327]

The use of rhetoric has been around since at least Aristotle. I doubt he invented it, but just figured out how to use it. I am not sure why you would deny it to the editors of the Hebrew text.

Rhetoric isn't grammar. And the use of pluralis maiestatis isn't rhetoric. You seem to miss the somewhat obvious fact that the author saw God as Majesty, therefore used the plural. But whether this be rhetoric or simple grammar, neither allows the conclusion that God was plural. And seeing as the first biblical writings predate Aristotle, I'm not sure what you think he has to do with the project. Certainly the writers wouldn't be, as they show precious little interest in intellectual matters beyond the purely spiritual and political. In fact, the only aspect of philosophy that the biblical authors seem interested in at all is morality.

If you recognize God as a parent, what keeps God from being a scientist or philosopher?

God was a gardener, wasn't he? I'm not sure what that has to do with seeing God as Father - which is also done in the Bible itself. But that apart, the biblical God also shows little interest in intellectual matters. He seems more fascinated by His own emotions, with complete disregard of anything else - including the humans He created. whatever can be distilled from the Bible, it doesn't amount to any scientific or philosophical system. It's: Obey God, or face His wrath. And offer Him strange gifts, such as male foreskins. Do this and you shall be rewarded. Or tortured for His pleasure, like Job.

 

[timtofly]

Rhetoric isn't grammar. And the use of pluralis maiestatis isn't rhetoric. You seem to miss the somewhat obvious fact that the author saw God as Majesty, therefore used the plural. But whether this be rhetoric or simple grammar, neither allows the conclusion that God was plural. And seeing as the first biblical writings predate Aristotle, I'm not sure what you think he has to do with the project. Certainly the writers wouldn't be, as they show precious little interest in intellectual matters beyond the purely spiritual and political. In fact, the only aspect of philosophy that the biblical authors seem interested in at all is morality.



God was a gardener, wasn't he? I'm not sure what that has to do with seeing God as Father - which is also done in the Bible itself. But that apart, the biblical God also shows little interest in intellectual matters. He seems more fascinated by His own emotions, with complete disregard of anything else - including the humans He created. whatever can be distilled from the Bible, it doesn't amount to any scientific or philosophical system. It's: Obey God, or face His wrath. And offer Him strange gifts, such as male foreskins. Do this and you shall be rewarded. Or tortured for His pleasure, like Job.

I guess each one of us reads into the Bible what we want to, but why would we ignore the majority of it, and distill it down to a few pet peaves?

Why would you state that certain rhetoric can only be modern? Are you saying that a concept does not exist, before it is used? Who determines when a concept is first used? If it is in the Hebrew OT, would that not be an earlier use, if not the original usage? I am not sure how you can prove the Hebrew writers were primitive, without much knowledge, when your proof is the claim only modern man can come up with certain concepts. For one thing, one would have to twist the text, in order for it to not show the concept.

There are concepts and ideas that can be reasoned out in the passage, so why be so literal, as to make the passage not make any sense? Some claim the account is just a metaphor with deeper meaning. Real life is just as meaningful.

 

[Agent327]

I guess each one of us reads into the Bible what we want to, but why would we ignore the majority of it, and distill it down to a few pet peaves?

That's a very good question. Perhaps one worthy to think about.

Why would you state that certain rhetoric can only be modern?

I wouldn't know. And I don't know where you get this idea that 'that certain rhetoric can only be modern' either. Nobody proposed that.

Are you saying that a concept does not exist, before it is used? Who determines when a concept is first used? If it is in the Hebrew OT, would that not be an earlier use, if not the original usage? I am not sure how you can prove the Hebrew writers were primitive, without much knowledge, when your proof is the claim only modern man can come up with certain concepts. For one thing, one would have to twist the text, in order for it to not show the concept.

You seem to be arguing something, but it's not quite clear what it is.

There are concepts and ideas that can be reasoned out in the passage, so why be so literal, as to make the passage not make any sense? Some claim the account is just a metaphor with deeper meaning. Real life is just as meaningful.

There's nothing 'literal' about the use of pluralis maiestatis. It's just grammar. And before being able to actually read a text, one should recognize the basic grammatical structure of it. I already explained why the author might be using it, but you don't seem to respond to that at all, instead preferring to keep with your interpretation, even though it's clearly faulty.

Once again, there's nothing in this bit of text to indicate that the author thought of God as plural.

 

[timtofly]

You seem to be arguing something, but it's not quite clear what it is.



There's nothing 'literal' about the use of pluralis maiestatis. It's just grammar. And before being able to actually read a text, one should recognize the basic grammatical structure of it. I already explained why the author might be using it, but you don't seem to respond to that at all, instead preferring to keep with your interpretation, even though it's clearly faulty.

Once again, there's nothing in this bit of text to indicate that the author thought of God as plural.

Because even in the first few chapters of Genesis, one can see, God, the spirit, and the voice of God "walking" in the Garden.

I pointed out that Adam as an immortal could see God. As a mortal it is impossible to do so. At the point, they ate, all they could do now, is hear the voice of God.

It is still just God, the Spirit, and the Word that have always been considered as the "Us" plural nature of God.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, if you don't take the story literally, then why are you taking the story literally to insist that there were multiple gods and God didn't know where Adam was? It's still pretty silly either way.

I didn't say I dont take the story literally, the Bible can be taken literally, figuratively, metaphorically, etc and understanding when requires context if it aint already obvious. We have plenty of context for reading into the story the existence of multiple gods.

Let us make male and female in our image suggests male and female deities. Even ancient Israelites recognized God's wife (Asherah) and they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures, some with roots far deeper into the past.

The Serpent was a deity, the sons of God came down and mated with the daughters of man. The schizophrenic nature of God - he desires to wipe humans out but saves them, etc. And of course the Commandment against worshiping other gods before God. In Joshua he tells the people their fathers served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers.

You need to read into the text to assume that God didn't know where they were. Your paraphrase that I quoted is not a precise one. It's a plausible paraphrase, but it's not precise.

The text says Adam hid and God called out "where are you? But I'm supposed to believe a literal reading claims God knew where Adam was and that he was hiding, etc? That would be reading into the text something that aint there.

@Tim - "I pointed out that Adam as an immortal could see God. As a mortal it is impossible to do so."

Didn't one of the mortal patriarchs wrestle God without losing?

 

[El_Machinae]

Both interpretations require 'reading in'. We're agnostic on whether God knew where Adam was, from the information in the text.

 

[timtofly]

I didn't say I dont take the story literally, the Bible can be taken literally, figuratively, metaphorically, etc and understanding when requires context if it aint already obvious. We have plenty of context for reading into the story the existence of multiple gods.

Let us make male and female in our image suggests male and female deities. Even ancient Israelites recognized God's wife (Asherah) and they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures, some with roots far deeper into the past.

The Serpent was a deity, the sons of God came down and mated with the daughters of man. The schizophrenic nature of God - he desires to wipe humans out but saves them, etc. And of course the Commandment against worshiping other gods before God. In Joshua he tells the people their fathers served other gods in the land of the 2 rivers.



The text says Adam hid and God called out "where are you? But I'm supposed to believe a literal reading claims God knew where Adam was and that he was hiding, etc? That would be reading into the text something that aint there.

@Tim - "I pointed out that Adam as an immortal could see God. As a mortal it is impossible to do so."

Didn't one of the mortal patriarchs wrestle God without losing?

Spoiler :

Genesis 32:24-32

Then some man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he did not defeat Ya‘akov, he struck Ya‘akov’s hip socket, so that his hip was dislocated while wrestling with him. The man said, “Let me go, because it’s daybreak.” But Ya‘akov replied, “I won’t let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked, “What is your name?” and he answered, “Ya‘akov.” Then the man said, “From now on, you will no longer be called Ya‘akov, but Isra’el; because you have shown your strength to both God and men and have prevailed.” Ya‘akov asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he answered, “Why are you asking about my name?” and blessed him there.

Ya‘akov called the place P’ni-El [face of God], “Because I have seen God face to face, yet my life is spared.” As the sun rose upon him he went on past P’ni-El, limping at the hip. This is why, to this day, the people of Isra’el do not eat the thigh muscle that passes along the hip socket — because the man struck Ya‘akov’s hip at its socket.

God appeared to Abraham and Sarah in human form. God wrestled with Jacob in human form. Genesis 3 does not say that God appeared to Adam and Eve in human form at any time. Jesus is God in human form, and mortals had no problem in seeing God in human form. Genesis 3 seems to indicate that God walked and talked with Adam and Eve. After they ate, it just says they heard God's voice.

Which translation says that the Sons of God came down? The translations I have read said that even the fallen (angels) lived on the earth at that time. The Serpent visited Eve in the Garden of Eden. God held council with the Sons of God, presumably on Earth, as they discussed the affairs of humans living on the earth.

If God created Adam as a mortal separately, and you say that it was to evolve the human race, what evolution has happened? According to the account, morality was the only thing that changed. If Adam lost immortality then that would make more sense to even mention it ever happened. According to Genesis, there is no mention of any immortals as interacting with humans other than God taking on human form, after the Flood. That does not mean they are not in another dimension that is around us, but that is another thread. After the Flood, mortals did carve stone images that allegedly represented the presence of gods, who were to help humans in their conquests.

In all the accounts that I have read so far, the ancients claimed that a God created gods, and that these gods mixed with mortal humans, and after the Flood humans had to search for the gods. It seems that when they could not be found, they just made carved images of them. God told the Hebrews not to make any images, but that God was a reality, and would form a covenant with them. As you pointed out, the Hebrews did not keep their part of the covenant and sought after the Mesopotamian's imaged gods.

 

[Agent327]

If God created Adam as a mortal separately, and you say that it was to evolve the human race, what evolution has happened?

Flawed reasoning: the authors of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution. (God obviously might have, but He didn't tell.) I assume, however, you are referring to plot development - of which there is a-plenty.

I didn't say I dont take the story literally, the Bible can be taken literally, figuratively, metaphorically, etc and understanding when requires context if it aint already obvious. We have plenty of context for reading into the story the existence of multiple gods.

Let us make male and female in our image suggests male and female deities.

No, it suggests the use of pluralis maiestatis - as already pointed out repeatedly.

Even ancient Israelites recognized God's wife (Asherah) and they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures, some with roots far deeper into the past.

Now this is correct - and also confirmed by archaeological finds.

The text says Adam hid and God called out "where are you? But I'm supposed to believe a literal reading claims God knew where Adam was and that he was hiding, etc? That would be reading into the text something that aint there.

@Tim - "I pointed out that Adam as an immortal could see God. As a mortal it is impossible to do so."

Moses was mortal, I think.

Because even in the first few chapters of Genesis, one can see, God, the spirit, and the voice of God "walking" in the Garden.

One really, really can't. And there's two reasons for this. The first, and most important, is that there's no mention of 'the spirit' and 'the voice' of God walking in the garden (which shouldn't surprise anyone, as spirits and voices don't 'walk').

It is still just God, the Spirit, and the Word that have always been considered as the "Us" plural nature of God.

This is incorrect for various reasons. First, The Word only appears in the gospel of John. Second, the idea that God's Spirit is a separate (but identical) entity from God was only formulated at the Council of Nicea 325 AD. Lastly, none of the above suggests that God is more than one. In short, it is reading a Christian doctrine into a Judaic text. I'm sure that was common in early Christianity, but as text reading goes, that's not very appropriate - seeing as the authors couldn't have possibly known of such a doctrine emerging centuries later.

 

[timtofly]

Flawed reasoning: the authors of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution. (God obviously might have, but He didn't tell.) I assume, however, you are referring to plot development - of which there is a-plenty..

Berzerker is the one claiming that Adam evolved. I claimed he was immortal and lost his immortality. That is not evolving.

Moses was mortal, I think.

Moses was with God, but never saw God's face.

One really, really can't. And there's two reasons for this. The first, and most important, is that there's no mention of 'the spirit' and 'the voice' of God walking in the garden (which shouldn't surprise anyone, as spirits and voices don't 'walk').

Adam said he heard the voice of God walking in the Garden. The Spirit was mentioned in Genesis 1:2.

This is incorrect for various reasons. First, The Word only appears in the gospel of John. Second, the idea that God's Spirit is a separate (but identical) entity from God was only formulated at the Council of Nicea 325 AD. Lastly, none of the above suggests that God is more than one. In short, it is reading a Christian doctrine into a Judaic text. I'm sure that was common in early Christianity, but as text reading goes, that's not very appropriate - seeing as the authors couldn't have possibly known of such a doctrine emerging centuries later.

John said that the Word was with God, and was God, and that all things were created by the Word of God. God said that the Spirit was separate in Genesis 1:2. If you are crediting the Council of Nicea coming up with the formula, why are you ignoring that John already claimed that the Word was separate, and when Jesus was baptized, the Spirit was separate, and that same Spirit was given to John on the Day of Pentecost. That was a long time before 325 AD. John already made that claim.

John made a lot of claims that can also be found in Genesis. If you want to point out that Christians were putting Doctrine into the Judaic text are we overlooking the point that Christ was the Word that spoke everything into being? That seems to be the whole point of why Christ was on earth. "To change what happened to Adam"

It was not Christians who came up with ideas. It was humans who needed 300 years finally realizing what Christ was teaching when he was on the earth. They still did not get everything right. The Hebrew nation met God on a mountain, and could not keep up their end of the Covenant. The followers of Christ wrote down what they remembered and were taught and humans still do not accept what was written.

Now today the claim is made that Moses never even existed.

 

[Arakhor]

Now today the claim is made that Moses never even existed.

I don't see why that is a problem. Abraham almost certainly didn't exist either and he's the legendary father of the Jews!