The Genesis Paradox

a reply to: DaphneApollo

So Eve was getting some "strange" eh and some control freak character called "god" didnt like it? Talk about 3rd wheel.

She made a choice of her own free will that people say don't exist and then poof damnation?

None of this makes any logical or rational sense at all unless its written for or as entertainment not reality.

Who the heck is this person, all saying hey I made you guys... now um yeah don't ahem sorry to naughty for me to talk about "eat" of some ahem er "fruit" of er um these two trees...

Sounds like some crappy parent trying to have a sex talk... who didn't really get one from their parents... oh and later raped a dudes virgin wife to give birth to Jesus, but yeah that was totally cool right?

2000 year old soap operas are like well today's soap operas.

Crap I dont have time for... well have fun with all of that, not my kinda show.

a reply to: DISRAELI

"But if God has said "Don't do X, because I regard it as evil", the two kinds of knowledge come to the same thing."

- My point exactly - the statement doesn't give any information about the act, it only lets us know that God doesn't approve. Of course, I could know that God thinks it's evil and that God doesn't want me to do it while still knowing nothing about the nature of evil itself. -

"to Hebrew ears the phrase we translate as "knowing good and evil" actually denoted "marking out the boundary between good and evil". Hence the very apposite symbolism of "taking the fruit"; the act of deciding "we will make our own decisions" (thus "knowing good and evil") was in itself an act of "making our own decision". "

- Maybe more like "taking the bait." As soon as God issues a command not to do something, our capacity to make our own decisions is already confirmed whether we obey or not. So, if knowing good and evil means making our own decisions, that was already in place before Eve ate the fruit. Were it not, there would have been no need to issue the command. -

a reply to: birdxofxprey

Perhaps it was some douche hoping to keep knowledge all to themself and these two people ignorant.

It is a possibility... people dont like to share power so they do what? Hide it. Whats the government do when it doesnt want to share knowledge with us? Hide it.

Know what I hide nada zip zlitch nothing at all... of course I agree with Socrates nothing said is real knowledge.

Sit down and meditate, thats in the bible too... lots of listening, reading, and praying... not a whole lot of meditating going on.

If they did, maybe all that knowledge would slide away and evil wouldnt exist... but hey dont preach about it, cause that just plants the seed... gotta keep practising until that other tree the one of silence grows and ripens and plop theres life.

Jibber jabbering to others using knowledge isnt any knowledge at all, its a hand shadow on the wall barking and not actually a dog.

Know what I see? Simply matter because I dont mind it in anyway shape or form. Mind is like a cloudless sky, clouds being thought... nothing clouding the mind? What could be pure or impure? Good or evil... except all this labelled shadowed ignorance people call knowledge.

I see lines people have drawn, and I point using the same shadows and erase them, so people arent left in ignorance... of blind leading the blind. (no offence to blind people intended) just using the same business people take so serious as an excuse to kill and hate each other, when its absolutely ridiculous to call that make believe knowledge reality and not story time... Aesop has some pretty good lessons about life too, but I dont see anyone voting him into sainthood etc.

This book and others talking about how to live, and all its doing is causing people to kill each other? Judge and point fingers? Divide and separate?

Spectacular... and people wonder why fear rules the day, and theres no peace on earth. Its not them nor you... its those pointing that finger blaming or judging them or you, and they have no knowledge whatsoever... because knowledge is just a concept not real in the slightest.

Seriously learn to meditate drop that veil covering the mind called knowledge.

If you do dont blame any of this crap on me in 2000 years... people will likely be grasping and roting it as truth and just as damned ignorant as now about what knowledge is. Oh he said this and that and the other... and then someone saying oh he said this that and the other not that, well this guy over here... then people all dagger eye like hey dont even cause we will kill you... and whoop thats where we are at.

People pointing at crap with words thats impossible to say with words or anything one calls or considers knowledge.

Im guilty of it, but no belief, no faith, no need. It is what it is... im not trying to be some control freak fellow going oh I am what I am with some selfishness attached all controlled and demanding anything.

I know Im saying hey Santa Claus doesnt exist here to a lot of people... and I know its considered rude and mean and whatever else.

But we are adults... if you know it show it by living it, how many lessons to people need? How many types or ways can people point? All this mouthing off and killing each other only displays one thing ignorance, or biting that very fruit one was "told" not too.

Of course if one drops all that dogma and nonsense as if it itself is truth, walk it instead of talk it, sit and meditate and drop it... it presents itself. What presents itself? Life beyond that chatter of knowledge... keep going and union and no separation from it, every moment, no doubts, no nonsense... it is what it is until; we make it something else... stop making it something else... thats reaching right for that fruit grasping exactly what one was asked not to do.

But hey, some peoples life is so bad from all the grasping people do? They welcome death... whos at fault for that? Every single one of us that has ever lived, if not laid down? The same.

We create stuff ourselves on top of nature and on top of reality... thats the veil, see it clearly and no face is hidden nor different than ones own.

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
The Genesis Paradox

Ought implies can. That is, the only condition under which any command is the least bit intelligible is if it is possible to do what has been commanded.

Gen. 2:16-17 “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’”

The paradox here is that the conditions under which this command is given make the command itself impossible to obey. Thus, the command itself is unintelligible, it makes no sense, it is a meaningless assertion of obligation. This is evident when one considers the following question: Before she did so, could Eve have known that she ought not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Presumably, before she ate the fruit, Eve had no knowledge of “good” or “evil” and, therefore, couldn’t possibly distinguish between good conduct and evil conduct. So, she couldn’t possibly have known the allegedly evil nature of her deed.

Can this be resolved by noting that since God said not to eat from the tree, Eve at least knew that doing so would be disobedient? There are two problems with this. First, God did not (directly) command Eve to refrain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This command was delivered to Adam [Gen. 2:16-17] before Eve was created [Gen. 2:22]. Second, while we might assume that Adam informed Eve about this prohibition, knowing that an act is disobedient is quite different from knowing that one ought not to do it. Eve may have known that her act was contrary to God’s wishes. But, without the knowledge of good and evil, it seems impossible that she could have known that her disobedience was evil (or that she ought not to be disobedient).

Let us assume, on a principle of charity, that Eve actually knew that to disobey God is evil, that she ought not to eat from the tree. If this were so, then Eve already had the knowledge imparted by the fruit; God commanded that Eve refrain from acquiring specific knowledge that she already had. But what should we make of a divine imperative not to learn something that is already known? If one already has knowledge of good and evil, then eating from the tree which imparts such knowledge makes absolutely no difference; eating the fruit has the same result as not eating it.

To summarize, it seems obvious that before eating the fruit, either Eve didn’t know it would be wrong to do so or she knew that it would be wrong to do so. In light of this, God’s command not to eat from the tree has only two possible meanings:
(1) God expected Eve to refrain from doing evil without knowing anything about what evil is.
or
(2) God expected Eve to refrain from acquiring knowledge that she already possessed.

Since neither of these expectations can actually be fulfilled, God’s command cannot be obeyed.
Ought implies can. Since this command cannot be obeyed, its expression of obligation is empty, meaningless and unintelligible.
Eve was set up, tricked, not by the serpent, but by God.

BOP

Chills just went down my spine. A thought provoking post.

Dp

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: intrptr
No, it was the tree in which its fruit gave knowledge of good and evil.

The 'knowledge of good and evil' is that we were brought here from somewhere else.

About time it was revealed.

I mean, an egg, seed, DNA, cell division and the womb aren't apparently evidence enough.

They didn't have microscopes back then though so it was easy to lie.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

Actually.. she didnt actually 'eat any fruit" except the loins of a certain fallen angel. Cain was sired by the devil after they were tossed out of eden. Adam "ate" some of what eve had left between her legs of the devils seed and immdeiatly knew he did something wrong and he felt ashamed.

The people writing down the verses coudnt be so openly frank and so we get "the apple".

The people writing down the verses??? The author obscured the identity of the forbidden fruit.

As for the rape scene you describe.... too much david icke maybe?

a reply to: birdxofxprey

To summarize, it seems obvious that before eating the fruit, either Eve didn’t know it would be wrong to do so or she knew that it would be wrong to do so. In light of this, God’s command not to eat from the tree has only two possible meanings: (1) God expected Eve to refrain from doing evil without knowing anything about what evil is. or (2) God expected Eve to refrain from acquiring knowledge that she already possessed.

Another perspective is that to my understanding evil is a spirit that was created in the celestial world and long before this universe. It was embraced by the angelic creation first. Here is what I assume by what I read.

Evil or the knowledge to know evil was embraced by the angelic host first and those that embraced this spirit were cast out of the heavenly realm and into this universe. We are told by some traditions that this earth was not the first to be inhabited with this knowledge but some of us assume that it was brought to this earth by the Satan's of the celestial realm and taught to the animal kingdom first.

The Serpent had embraced this and presented it to Eve but we do not know whether the Serpent had to also partake of any tree to have this knowledge. The celestial Satan's are assumed to have not had to partake of any fruit to embrace this same spirit so why would Eve have had to eat of any substance to embrace this same spirit that the Serpent embraced? The Serpent was also punished as the perpetrator and yet all the Creator had to do was to remove this spirit or refrain from creating this spirit from the onset.

So my question always goes back to why did the Creator create this evil in the first place? The celestial host was serving the Creator and worshiping the Creator in what I assume was a perfect order. But not with freedom of consciousness. The Creator was not receiving true love. He was only being served and that is not the nature of the creator. His true nature is total love. How in the world can He make true love. By creating evil.

If one were to stand before the Creator and the Creator admires His creation knowing that it is not perfect because it has no cognisance, then He would have to create something to allow, but not force, this creation to freely love Him. The Creator could not simply say do you love me because the creature has no idea of what he is referencing. So the Creator must show the creature the spirit of His opposite. That would be evil. Now the creature has a choice of understanding love and hate. Those are the two choices of His creation.

The Serpent was severely punished by his hate. The Serpent called his Creator a liar and with the knowledge of evil taught this to Eve. Eve did not have hate and in fact had love. Yes she did disobey and had the knowledge of obedience and disobedience but she did not have the knowledge of hate and love because it was not presented to her. Her sin was as of a child who disobeys a parent, Not with knowledge of hate but of influence.

My understanding is that the tree of life and the tree of death were those two choices that determines our fate with everlasting life. By this I mean that all of the people today do not have to eat of a tree to know hate and love. You must remember that Adam and Eve when first formed had no knowledge of hate and actually no knowledge of love. They were simply created creatures that did as they were taught. That knowledge or spirit has now been revealed and it was done so with that purpose. It came to being as was the Creator's purpose and not that God was taken by surprise.

In conclusion, it is my belief that the tree was not the spirit of evil but was the means of disobedience. The tree of this knowledge is never mentioned again in all of my studies and is for that reason that I am led to believe that this tree was simply a tool to introduce the spirit of hate to this creation. Yes there was a fruit and a tree but that fruit was not that spirit of evil. The fruit and the tree was a means of introducing the spirit.

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

Actually.. she didnt actually 'eat any fruit" except the loins of a certain fallen angel. Cain was sired by the devil after they were tossed out of eden. Adam "ate" some of what eve had left between her legs of the devils seed and immdeiatly knew he did something wrong and he felt ashamed.

The people writing down the verses coudnt be so openly frank and so we get "the apple".

The people writing down the verses??? The author obscured the identity of the forbidden fruit.

As for the rape scene you describe....

too much david icke maybe?

Eve wasnt raped. Adam wasnt raped either. he just went to eat eve out and got a bit of sperm from Satan. now tell me if you accidentally ate another guys sperm woudnt you be ashamed if you were straight?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

Actually.. she didnt actually 'eat any fruit" except the loins of a certain fallen angel. Cain was sired by the devil after they were tossed out of eden. Adam "ate" some of what eve had left between her legs of the devils seed and immdeiatly knew he did something wrong and he felt ashamed.

The people writing down the verses coudnt be so openly frank and so we get "the apple".

The people writing down the verses??? The author obscured the identity of the forbidden fruit.

As for the rape scene you describe....

too much david icke maybe?

Eve wasnt raped. Adam wasnt raped either. he just went to eat eve out and got a bit of sperm from Satan. now tell me if you accidentally ate another guys sperm woudnt you be ashamed if you were straight?

Lolwut.

a reply to: Seede

You mean he bit the crap sandwich and told others it was good, and in their innocence they agreed... yet one said hey this tastes like $h!t! Well thats because it was... what we make of this sandwich of course can be healthy or unhealthy... every nation can make a healthy sandwich... not sharing the recipe? Unhealthy for the world... and so it goes.

Here is something I do not understand.
God knows all because he created all.
He made man and then woman.
He did so knowing full well what would happen.
He knew Eve would eat the fruit and then Adam would.
Why did he create them knowing they would do this deed
Did he plan things to happen this way?
That would mean he made man and woman imperfect
on purpose. Or he wanted things to play out just as they did.

originally posted by: grayghost
Here is something I do not understand.
God knows all because he created all.
He made man and then woman.
He did so knowing full well what would happen.
He knew Eve would eat the fruit and then Adam would.
Why did he create them knowing they would do this deed
Did he plan things to happen this way?
That would mean he made man and woman imperfect
on purpose. Or he wanted things to play out just as they did.

My thoughts exactly. Why are we to blame for something he set up in the first place. Hey, he even MADE the Nachash. (in Hebrew that can mean snake (for the hissing sound) or upright shining being/entity. Either way, this supposed "good" god made something that went AWOL or bad, and let it loose in the garden with his new kids. Kinda stinks to high heaven if you ask me. OR....there's another explanation. Which I'm doing my darndest to figure out.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: birdxofxprey

To summarize, it seems obvious that before eating the fruit, either Eve didn’t know it would be wrong to do so or she knew that it would be wrong to do so. In light of this, God’s command not to eat from the tree has only two possible meanings: (1) God expected Eve to refrain from doing evil without knowing anything about what evil is. or (2) God expected Eve to refrain from acquiring knowledge that she already possessed.

Another perspective is that to my understanding evil is a spirit that was created in the celestial world and long before this universe. It was embraced by the angelic creation first. Here is what I assume by what I read.

Evil or the knowledge to know evil was embraced by the angelic host first and those that embraced this spirit were cast out of the heavenly realm and into this universe. We are told by some traditions that this earth was not the first to be inhabited with this knowledge but some of us assume that it was brought to this earth by the Satan's of the celestial realm and taught to the animal kingdom first.

The Serpent had embraced this and presented it to Eve but we do not know whether the Serpent had to also partake of any tree to have this knowledge. The celestial Satan's are assumed to have not had to partake of any fruit to embrace this same spirit so why would Eve have had to eat of any substance to embrace this same spirit that the Serpent embraced? The Serpent was also punished as the perpetrator and yet all the Creator had to do was to remove this spirit or refrain from creating this spirit from the onset.

So my question always goes back to why did the Creator create this evil in the first place? The celestial host was serving the Creator and worshiping the Creator in what I assume was a perfect order. But not with freedom of consciousness. The Creator was not receiving true love. He was only being served and that is not the nature of the creator. His true nature is total love. How in the world can He make true love. By creating evil.

If one were to stand before the Creator and the Creator admires His creation knowing that it is not perfect because it has no cognisance, then He would have to create something to allow, but not force, this creation to freely love Him. The Creator could not simply say do you love me because the creature has no idea of what he is referencing. So the Creator must show the creature the spirit of His opposite. That would be evil. Now the creature has a choice of understanding love and hate. Those are the two choices of His creation.

The Serpent was severely punished by his hate. The Serpent called his Creator a liar and with the knowledge of evil taught this to Eve. Eve did not have hate and in fact had love. Yes she did disobey and had the knowledge of obedience and disobedience but she did not have the knowledge of hate and love because it was not presented to her. Her sin was as of a child who disobeys a parent, Not with knowledge of hate but of influence.

My understanding is that the tree of life and the tree of death were those two choices that determines our fate with everlasting life. By this I mean that all of the people today do not have to eat of a tree to know hate and love. You must remember that Adam and Eve when first formed had no knowledge of hate and actually no knowledge of love. They were simply created creatures that did as they were taught. That knowledge or spirit has now been revealed and it was done so with that purpose. It came to being as was the Creator's purpose and not that God was taken by surprise.

In conclusion, it is my belief that the tree was not the spirit of evil but was the means of disobedience. The tree of this knowledge is never mentioned again in all of my studies and is for that reason that I am led to believe that this tree was simply a tool to introduce the spirit of hate to this creation. Yes there was a fruit and a tree but that fruit was not that spirit of evil. The fruit and the tree was a means of introducing the spirit.

Well, I will say that was eloquently written and expressed. Here's my .02 cents on what you said...first off, this "god" that wants true love, sure used a convoluted way to get it. Example....because this "true god" wants "said love", we..as a species, now live in a predatory world full of violence and hate (yes, much good, too) nevertheless, it pretty much sucks here for many, many, people. This god was willing to put in motion a play, so to speak, to allow humans to choose him, and nevermind that there would be children born with deformities, or raped and murdered. Or, there would be mass genocide of people, or natural disasters that wiped innocent and evil folks alike out. Or, how bout the 65 billion animals that we mercilessly abuse and slaughter a year, just so we can go the local grocery store and buy an nice juicy steak. While I'm at it, how bout the wars, killings, robberies, etc....all so this god could let us see how awesome he is when compared to evil...just so we'd love him.
Does anyone but me see the insanity of that???? Do you know what I feel like these days? A pawn in a huge game.
I'm sick to death of being a plaything to something bigger than me and I'll be damned if I have to worship an entity that thought this whole FUBAR was a good idea. Hey, come down here and live 85 years in the Bronx. Then, tell me it was a good idea. Sheesh.

a reply to: grayghost

Just because people run around saying its true doesnt mean it is... like Orwells War of the Worlds broadcast had people all over town seeing UFOs reporting things to the police... not knowing it wasnt a news broadcast but a science fiction story.

Even if its make believe the people making it real by believing it are the ones that give these beliefs arms legs and a mouth to run around and do things... like superman and a towel give a child the power to fly around the living room jump mighty couches and break vases in a single bound.

Superman real? Nope but the effect on the vase is.

Wow, lots of interesting comments. Thanks!

Regarding the issues of deception and human mortality in this story:

The only deceptive character in the Genesis story is God.
For example, note God’s threat regarding the consequences of eating from the tree:
God says - [Gen. 2:17] “in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Eve reiterates God’s threat of immediate death when the serpent asks her about it:
[Gen. 3:4] “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die.’”

Did they die “in the day” that they ate of the tree? No.
Did they become mortal? No, they were always mortal
(even God goes on to observe that they never ate from the tree of life).
So, God lied and the serpent told the truth.

The serpent tells Eve [Gen. 3:5] “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
God admits this when he finds out what’s happened [Gen. 3:22] “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil…”

Then, surprisingly, God kicks them out. Why is it surprising?
Because God’s reason for kicking them out has nothing to do with disobedience:
[Gen. 3:22-23] “’lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’ -- therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.”
(like the childhood bully who kicks others off the playground when his authority begins to wane…)

The serpent is cursed as follows:
[Gen. 3:14] “upon your belly you shall go.”
Not to belabor the obvious, but wouldn’t a serpent already be doing this? [to suggest that the serpent was a “lizard” that actually had legs would raise other concerns such as how we might account for the presence of contemporary lizards that still have legs…]

To further confound the senseless nature of the story, it tends to be discussed in reference to specific ideas about which it actually says nothing at all.
- The story does not mention a “fall,” for example. Even God recognizes that they were “up-graded” by eating the fruit (“the man has become like one of us”).
- There is no suggestion in the story that these events are the point of origin of “sin” from which all other humans need to be saved.
- There is no indication that the serpent is a “devil” or former angel or anything other than a serpent.

BOP

a reply to: birdxofxprey

I have a third supposition.

Maybe it's just a silly old story made up by people thousands of years ago with a far more basic understanding of the human psyche than we do now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I have a third supposition.

Maybe it's just a silly old story made up by people thousands of years ago with a far more basic understanding of the human psyche than we do now.

Yes, and human biology too.
"she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" [2:23]
So, Adam gave birth to Eve and God was the mid-wife.
Written by men with womb envy...

Meaningful coincidence:

Immediately after hitting the button on my previous comment I stepped outside.
There's a small tree by my back door.
In the tree was a snake, looking right at me.
First one I've seen in a couple years.
Hmmm...

originally posted by: birdxofxprey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I have a third supposition.

Maybe it's just a silly old story made up by people thousands of years ago with a far more basic understanding of the human psyche than we do now.

Yes, and human biology too.
"she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" [2:23]
So, Adam gave birth to Eve and God was the mid-wife.
Written by men with womb envy...

That cracked me up. Actually, the whole Bible is a patriarchal/misogynistic book. Women are the lesser from Genesis to Rev. The only noted exception would be Jesus. He actually treated women as equals. Probably why they were so drawn to him. Jesus also said, "if you've seen me, you've seen the father". So, the father would not be anything like YHWH. The OT god is an imposter.
On the topic of the OP, Genesis chp. 1 to Gen. chp 2:3, and then Gen. 2:4 onward.....there are two different stories of creation. Even the order of things being created are different. Plus, it seems the "Elohim" or "God" as it's written in Gen. 1, created humans male and female both, in the beginning. It was YWHW who either divided the image by taking woman out of man, or else made his own creatures, starting with Adam. Of course, this would be getting into the Gnostic view of things.