Some things that should be brought up about Genesis and the nature of god (Update)

[finsternis]

Ok, I just started Humanities and the first thing that we learn about is the bible. First week finished and my professor rose some questions in the first 3 pages of the bible. Here they are:

First, the two accounts of creation (one more detailed than the other). In he first account, god creates the animals and then humans (he also creates man and woman at the same time. In the second account he creates man then he does some stuff then he creates the animals and then woman. Was man first or the animals? Also, why make woman out of his rib? Why not like he made man? Why does he require a rib for woman but not man?

Second, nakedness. Why is nakedness an evil? Also if evil comes from human free will, then why is nakedness considered an evil? Nakedness is not a product of evil and that also means that Adam and Eve were sinning before they knew of good and evil.

Third, the snake. Why did the snake did what it did? Because it is evil? Why did god made the snake evil?

Fourth, god all-knowing power. If he knows everything, then why does it seen like he learns everything in he bible from experience? Like when he "notices" that man should not be alone and creates the animals. And then notices that that did not work (who knows what Adam did to those poor animals) and creates Eve. And when he tells Abraham that there are "accusations" against Sodom. If you read it, you notice that god is not sure whether the accusations are true. Abraham has to ask him if he will spare the city if "there are 10 pure ones in the city". There are other occasions that you can read on your on.
And of course the famous question that if god knows the future, then we have no free will since everything we do have to be what god knows.

UPDATE! Sep. 3

Today we continued reading the bible in my humanities class and these questions rose up:

5) It is understood that Adam and Eve did not know what Good and Evil was before they ate the apple. But that is impossible. God told them that they couldn't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if they did, they would die. But in order for Adam and Eve to follow such a command they had to understand the command. They had to know that violating the command was a bad thing, that it was an evil thing. They had to understand that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was an evil thing to do. So, if Adam and Eve had no knowledge whatsoever of good and evil, then god made a unattainable command. It was impossible for Adam and Eve to follow (kind of like if you tell someone who has no knowledge of Rocket Science to build you a rocket or you will kill that person. It is an unattainable command). Thus, if Adam and Eve indeed had no knowledge of good and evil, then it is safe to say that god did an evil thing.

6) When Eve was tempted by the serpent we are told that she did not eat from the tree because she wanted to disobey god. She wanted knowledge and saw that the fruit was pleasant to look at. Eve then eats from the tree and then gives some to Adam. Adam does not even argue with Eve (he just takes it). Then god gives the punishments. One of the Punishments he gives Eve is that she shall be "owned" by man. Do you think that that is fair? Why make woman inferior to man? Also, this is the actual time when god declares that man is superior to woman. The why did he make Eve from the rib?

7) Abraham. Unlike Noah (who was chosen by god because of his "righteousness"), Abraham was chosen because he follow god's command immediately. So you could say, Abraham completely trusted god (like when he was told to kill his son). But then there is the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah. IF you remember, god brought Abraham to a mountain where they saw Sodom. He say that he has “heard” that the people in that city are evil (which is weird, doesn’t god knows everything? How can god be unsure? But that is not the issue that I am aiming at) and that he is going to destroy the city. Then Abraham starts to ask god questions (he questions god. So he doesn’t trust him 100% as we thought) about if he could spare the city if there are 10 good people in it. There is a problem here. Why does he question god about the city yet he does not question god about his only son; the son that he got by a miracle (since he and Sarah are very old), the son that is supposed to be the only link between Abraham and the mighty nation that god promised Abraham, the person that he is closest to.

8) Noah. Noah was chosen because he was the only righteous person in the planet. So, he was chosen to be the only survivor of the flood. You all know the story, god regrets creating humans (which is a question of its own), he decides to kill everyone, Noah is the only righteous person (which is funny since, by original sin, everyone is bad). Now, whether the flood story happened or is even possible is another debated, but we will assume it did (somehow). The issue is after the flood. Noah is suppose to be the most righteous person alive (more righteous than his family that was only saved because they are his family) yet he gets drunk, naked and then curses his grandson Canaan because Canaan’s father, Ham, saw him naked. What kind of righteous person is this? Did god messed up?


I will update this if I learn anything new.

[Pickle_mole]

Nakedness is not an evil. Adam and Eve were naked, its just when they ate from the apple they became ashamed because they never new one could be naked. They did not understand the concept and when they did they covered up. The snake is Satan, Satan hates God and everything he made. Gods only rule was to not eat the apple, and satan wanted to make man fail god. And number four, he gives you free choice. The choice to be good and evil. And even if i knew you were going to buy a red car and never told you i knew and you bought that red car, would that not be your choice? i would just know your choice. God knows if you will glorify Him or denounce Him, but He does not force your hand.

[finsternis]

Nakedness is not an evil. Adam and Eve were naked, its just when they ate from the apple they became ashamed because they never new one could be naked. They did not understand the concept and when they did they covered up.

First, the bible never said "apple". It just says "fruit of knowledge of good and evil".

Second, the fruit gave them knowledge of good and "evil". Evil is the key word. They did not have "knowledge" of good and "evil" before they ate it and did not feel shame of being naked. Then they ate it, so not they have good and "evil", and now they feel ashame. They now "know" that they are naked.

Thus, nakedness is a evil (according to the bible).

The snake is Satan, Satan hates God and everything he made. Gods only rule was to not eat the apple, and satan wanted to make man fail god.

That does not answer the question of why did god made the snake. Why did he created satan (and you can say that satan was a angel that fell but why did god created the angel knowing that he would fall?).

And number four, he gives you free choice. The choice to be good and evil. And even if i knew you were going to buy a red car and never told you i knew and you bought that red car, would that not be your choice? i would just know your choice. God knows if you will glorify Him or denounce Him, but He does not force your hand.

But why does he seen to "find out" about stuff? Like the Sodom story and the Adam and Eve story. Also, later (in Noah's story) god regrets creating humans (and thus he floods the world). How can he regret something that he knew was going to happen?

Is it possible that god is not all-knowing (since if you think about it, no where in the bible is it explicitly said that god is all knowing). Maybe people just added that characteristic.

[Pickle_mole]

LOL im never going to argue the true intentions of god without being in person! far too complex. And please dont try and nail me because i said apple and you said fruit of knowledge, tomatoes tamatoes brother! He gave lucifer a choice just like he did me and you.

[Father Jack]

Those are some intresting questions raised.

Couldnt the fact that Eve was created out of Adams rib have something to do with the fact that women were usually percieved as being second to men? Therefore it is only right that women must be made from man. It prehaps reflects the general culture of the Canaanites (im assuming the early inhabitants of Israel were Canaanites) society when when the stories of genesis first came about.

Again the nakedness is prehaps an example of the cultural perceptions. To the Canaanites it may have been seen as an evil and as a humiliation to walk naked, it prehaps makes humans more animal like. But why did God origianly create them naked? So they are just like animals?

The snake is a strange aspect of Genesis. If God is supposedly all powerful and all loving then why would he create something with the intent of doing evil? Does it suggest that God is infact weak? In which case why do people worship him as a god? Or we are to prehaps take genesis as more like a parable. In my opinion it is mere parable about temptation and not to take advantage of peoples trust. Such as Gods trust in Adam and Eve not eating one of the fruits.

[IronBlood]

Also, why make woman out of his rib? Why not like he made man? Why does he require a rib for woman but not man?

Well I wish I could point you to a "Lilith discussion." To keep it short, Lilith (man's first wife) was created out of the same matrial as the man and could claim equality to him. However, Eve was created out a rib of a man so that she could not claim equality to the man.

In other terms.

Mud/clay/dirt= superior human creating martial

Rib=Inferior human creating martial

Second, nakeness. Why is nakeness an evil? Also if evil comes from human free will, then why is nakeness considered an evil? Nakeness is not a product of evil and that also means that Adam and Eve were sinning before they knew of good and evil.

Don't know much to say here but I think its more a question of consciousness.

Third, the snake. Why did the snake did what it did? Because it is evil? Why did god made the snake evil?

From what I learned the Serpent/snake is said to be/represent the "Old" Gods of the ancient Caananite religion. Its assumed the Israeli/Caananite people wanted to forget these "snake" Gods and wanted to make sure no one would sure worship them again. And how do you kill a god, you ask? By demonizing him and making him Antagonist.

But contradictory to what I have said in Numbers 21:9 Moses is commanded by God to create a bronze serpent to heal the people that were biten by the poisonous snakes.

Fourth, god all-knowing power. If he knows everything, then why does it seen like he learns everything in he bible from experience? Like when he "notices" that man shouldnnot be along and creates the animals. And then notices that that did not work (who knows what Adam did to those poor animals) and creates Eve. And when he tells Abraham that there are "accusations" against Sodom. If you read it, you notice that god is not sure whether the accusations are true. Abraham has to ask him if he will spare the city if "there are 10 pure ones in the city". There are other occasions that you can read on your on.

I guess the only reasonable response I have is that the "authors" of the Torah wanted God to seem human and not some big divine mystery man with alien emotions or thinking.

Another view point is that the Torah (Genesis) was written/collected before the idea of God being omnipotent,omniscient, etc came around.

[basics]

finsternis,

There are two accounts that appear to be of creation but are not. The first is creation as it happened whilst the other is about a creation within what already was created. That being that God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden.

Why is that significant? Because the garden was a type of heaven and the creatures made then in the garden were of a different nature to them outside, even though then the fall of all creation hadn't yet happened.

So what in effect we are seeing is a story within a story. This is significant concerning the woman in relation to the man just as the garden holds the same significance to the relationship between the general creation and them in the garden.

For sure God could have made Eve just as He made Adam but the relationship and it's Spiritual significance would then have been quite different and the Gospel to come rather at a loss in some regards. In other words it would put a different slant on marriage, something God had very much in mind when He made Eve from Adam.

What Adam named, although named in the garden, was what all became in our eyes and still is. What we saw from the garden was what the Gospel when it came to fulfilment would ensure. But when the fall happened, that creation, the heavenly type was withdrawn, never to be entered unless the fallen nature be removed, hence the need to be born again.

When the pair discovered they were naked this itself carried more than having no clothes. Quite apart from the fact that their minds, before closed, were now opened to realise good from bad, their nakedness reflected that nothing could cover this up, no not even clothes. It would take something much stronger, something God had in mind, to change their situation.

And immediately after confronting the three, Adam, Eve and the serpent, God revealed the Gospel for the very first time. He told them of something already ordained in the heavens before creation, something already planned and now being put into action, so that in His good pleasure and by the same some men and women would have a personal relationship with God their Creator.

That is the whole purpose of why we are here at all. Why God did not pick another animal to represent Satan is quite another question that I am not capable to answer other than to say that perhaps most serpents carry venom of sorts that are not conducive to man. Not only that but it spoke with a forked tongue something we now regard as double talk.

So did God make mistakes? Not according to the Gospel and not according to it's outcome.

[finsternis]

LOL im never going to argue the true intentions of god without being in person! far too complex. And please dont try and nail me because i said apple and you said fruit of knowledge, tomatoes tamatoes brother! He gave lucifer a choice just like he did me and you.

I wasn't bashing you for that. I was just correcting a minor mistake. No biggy.

And about the Lucifer thing, well didn't he know what Lucifer was going to do? Why create him in the first place? it is like you knowing that that guy is going to take your job as the CEO of your company, and cause destruction to it, if he get promoted but you still do it.

@Mackios

Well, you are saying that the bible is not what it says it is and I agree with that (I know that all of this BS is contradictory because it is BS and BS never makes senses).

But in this discussion I am assuming that the Bible is true and then finding all these questions and seeing what religious people say.

Well I wish I could point you to a "Lilith discussion." To keep it short, Lilith (man's first wife) was created out of the same matrial as the man and could claim equality to him. However, Eve was created out a rib of a man so that she could not claim equality to the man.

I know that story. But since it is not explicitly in the bible, I am not taking it in the consideration.

Don't know much to say here but I think its more a question of consciousness.

Consciousness makes nakedness evil?

From what I learned the Serpent/snake is said to be/represent the "Old" Gods of the ancient Caananite religion. Its assumed the Israeli/Caananite people wanted to forget these "snake" Gods and wanted to make sure no one would sure worship them again. And how do you kill a god, you ask? By demonizing him and making him Antagonist.

Just like the Christians. They demonilize a lot of old gods so people won't worship them. Remember Satan's trident? Why do you think he has one?

I guess the only reasonable response I have is that the "authors" of the Torah wanted God to seem human and not some big divine mystery man with alien emotions or thinking.

Another view point is that the Torah (Genesis) was written/collected before the idea of God being omnipotent,omniscient, etc came around.

I was thinking of that and so was my professor. Could be true (remember that the old gods were not all powerful due to the fact that there were a lot).

finsternis,

There are two accounts that appear to be of creation but are not. The first is creation as it happened whilst the other is about a creation within what already was created. That being that God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden.

Why is that significant? Because the garden was a type of heaven and the creatures made then in the garden were of a different nature to them outside, even though then the fall of all creation hadn't yet happened.

Why do they contradict each other then? In the first, god created the animals first and then humans. In the second, he created humans and then the other animals.

So what in effect we are seeing is a story within a story. This is significant concerning the woman in relation to the man just as the garden holds the same significance to the relationship between the general creation and them in the garden.

For sure God could have made Eve just as He made Adam but the relationship and it's Spiritual significance would then have been quite different and the Gospel to come rather at a loss in some regards. In other words it would put a different slant on marriage, something God had very much in mind when He made Eve from Adam.

Huh? What spiritual significance is this? What would be the difference between a marriage made in which Eve is made from dust too and a marriage in which Eve is made from a rib? And what relationship are you talking about? The relation that Adam is superior to Eve? Or the famous "Dad is the head of the family" relation?

When the pair discovered they were naked this itself carried more than having no clothes. Quite apart from the fact that their minds, before closed, were now opened to realise good from bad, their nakedness reflected that nothing could cover this up, no not even clothes. It would take something much stronger, something God had in mind, to change their situation.

I do not understand. So you are saying that nakedness is not really nakedness. It is just a representation of a much greater evil that Adam and Eve already had and that now that their eyes are open, they now know that they have that great evil.

Not only is that very complicated, it also makes no sense. What about the people who do not use clothes or very little clothes? (like nudists and natives of some tropical places).

So did God make mistakes? Not according to the Gospel and not according to it's outcome.

Well, he did indeed says that he regrets creating us. And as of today, i think he still regrets creating us. I mean, when we are not killing each other, we are making humanist effort to save each other (including homosexuals, atheists and people of other religions that are no Christianity).

[basics]

" Why do they contradict each other then? In the first, god created the animals first and then humans. In the second, he created humans and then the other animals."

finsternis,

In the second, Adam, was taken from creation and put into the garden and then animals with a different nature were made to be with him there. Why, because what was made before could not enter the garden even though the fall had not yet taken place? Why, because they were earthly creatures and not heavenly.

This has to correspond to the Gospel that no flesh and blood may enter heaven even though the garden was but a shadow or type of heaven. Were that not the case then of course we have two stories that vary and that cannot happen in the word of God.

You may then ask why Adam and Eve were allowed in if that were the case and you would be right to ask. But, Adam and Eve at that point had a veil, a covering on or in their minds at that point, blanking out the knowledge that makes humanity what it is, the knowledge of good and evil.

They had the same covering that the Israelites would eventually have in the blood of a sacrifice, that God covered their sin in blindness for those moments until the time that they fell and were destined to fall so that a Saviour could come. By that I mean that the blood of animals being useless, it was God Himself that covered them just as He covered the Israelites.

[finsternis]

A remarkable example of reducing an argument to an instance. Nakedness can lead to several things. The forebearance of all those things is that which makes it evil.

Care to explain? I cannot think of any other evil that you might be thinking about expect for rape. If there is any other, then please tell us so.

His ways or not ours. A mortal man can not even fathom Gods true designs for he made you and the universe you occupy. (good argument eh )

It is true because he says it is true. (yep. that is a good argument)

@ basics

So he created the animals first and then just brought them to the garden and then Adam named them? Wait, but how did they enter the garden? They are not heavenly. How was the snake in the garden too? Isn't the snake the opposite of what heavenly is?

And about the knowledge of good and evil, it still does not answer one question: does that mean that Adam and Eve did evil in the garden (like being naked) yet since they had no knowledge of it, they did not know. So they were sinning, but just were ignorant about it (like children).

[basics]

finsternis,

Nope, that won't do. Firstly, creation was as is recorded. Secondly, when the garden was introduced, then the other animals were as recorded made. Of course they resembled them outside, but could not be them outside since the garden was a heavenly type. The nature of those outside was different from them inside. That is why there are two records of animals being made in different circumstances.

So why the difference? As I explained flesh and blood may not enter heaven, Adam and Eve being blinded, were the only exception in this case. The garden was out of touch for those outside, for the same reason that the twosome were veiled, as long as they were in it. Once they fell from grace they were put out and the garden was withdrawn.

The innocence they had was gone by their wilfull disobedience, shown by nakedness, a record that nothing can be covered so that God cannot see it, and the fact that they never believed God to mean what He said. Hence they and all else was put under a curse, that of sin, to be passed down on each generation through them.

What this meant was that only a Saviour could take away that which had been placed on them and their's. And that Saviour could not be of the same nature as those cursed, because the price for sin was set at blood and their blood was cursed and so could never save any. Oh death of the mortal body satisfies the Law but the soul which does not die remains under the curse.

That is why even in type the animals made after Adam was taken into the garden looked the same and were named the same as them outside, but yet couldn't be entirely, because of the nature of heavenly things. And no, the reason between good and evil does not rest on nakedness but on the fact that once they had disbelieved and disobeyed God, the veil was lifted, and they hid because they knew that they had done wrong.

They had always been naked until then but until then there was nothing in their nakedness to make them aware of it. Until then sex played no part in their lives as there is no sex in heaven, but when the fall came along with the curse that powerful function became part of their lives. They had to reproduce and I can imagine that they would be like my parents and their parents and so on that remaining naked was inconducive to life even in those times both morally and physically.

[Ummon]

Genesis contains much in symbolic terms, and yes, consciousness makes nakedness evil, in the sense that by acknowledging the possible future consequences and implications of nakedness in many local contexts, one will try to avoid it, whereas in a state of perfect adherence to one's present, nothing is evil, because there is no prediction.

[finsternis]

...and yes, consciousness makes nakedness evil, in the sense that by acknowledging the possible future consequences and implications of nakedness in many local contexts, one will try to avoid it...

Care to explain what you mean by this?

[Ummon]

If you know what implications come with nakedness, you will fear them, just like if you know what implications come with alcoholic beverages, you will fear them.

So either if you consider the possibility of rape and promiscuity (which leads to the transmission of STDs), or ethilic coma, or the inability to defend oneself when in alcoholic stupor, obviously it is not the thing in itself which is evil, but the position consciousness takes on it which qualifies it as such, because of the consequences.

[finsternis]

So nakedness lead to rape, right? What about those civilizations that used very little clothing (even none, some times) like natives to a lot of tropical places. Also, do you not agree that if we were all naked we wouldn't actually feel any shame? Also, if we were all looking at each other's stuff, we wouldn't really get turned on by just seeing it, we would by knowing that we are going to do it. There would be rapist (that is true) but there are rapist no matter what (clothes or not).

[Ummon]

So nakedness lead to rape, right? What about those civilizations that used very little clothing (even none, some times) like natives to a lot of tropical places. Also, do you not agree that if we were all naked we wouldn't actually feel any shame? Also, if we were all looking at each other's stuff, we wouldn't really get turned on by just seeing it, we would by knowing that we are going to do it. There would be rapist (that is true) but there are rapist no matter what (clothes or not).

A remarkable example of reducing an argument to an instance. Nakedness can lead to several things. The forebearance of all those things is that which makes it evil.

[gambit]

The two accounts of creation does seem confusing. I prefer the idea that; Animals were made, then man. Then man named the animals. Also woman being made out of mans rib is probably connected too how women were seen as under men back then. The writers of the books were all men. The ideas were all that of men.

The nakedness is something. I dont know why they were ashamed to be evil, since walking around naked being taboo is completely cultural.

I understand why the snake did it's thing, since it's Satan. What I dont understand is why God didn't acknowledge the snake tricked Adam and Eve and not banish them. I know it was a simple command, Dont eat the fruit. Yet still, although Adam and Eve were made to be completely physically mature, they basically had the minds of children (wouldnt they?) in the sense they hadn't had any experience in life. They hadn't experienced good or evil. God never warned them about trickery and deception.

They were taking a test that affected the outcome of their entire species for all time and they had no idea they were taking a test, had no experience or knowledge of the tests requirements and had the odds tipped against them by a third party.

How fair.

God apparently didn't know alot either, you pretty much wrapped that up finsternis. I have a simple theory that may explain all four of these points.

Perhaps the Bible was just written by some like-minded individuals, over long spans of time, who wanted to scare people in society into acting like they wanted them too. (what they believed was 'good'.)

[Pickle_mole]

His ways or not ours. A mortal man can not even fathom Gods true designs for he made you and the universe you occupy. (good argument eh )

[gambit]

His ways or not ours. A mortal man can not even fathom Gods true designs for he made you and the universe you occupy. (good argument eh )

I hope you're not really serious.

When you're innocent, you're innocent.

Right and wrong is the knowledge or discernment between one thing and another.

As they were innocent, they were not aware of what was shame. Its like babies. If a baby punched your eye, is the baby evil? No! Its innocent, it did not commit a crime or anything.

"Sin" is considered an act of intention knowing the act is "wrong".

Adam and Eve were naked, not be intention or knowledge, but innocence.

Eating the "fruit of knowledge" gave them awareness of their established rebellion against God. Their awareness of their nakedness caused them shame...but nakedness is not considered a sin in itself by any means. So don't put too much stock about the idea of nakedness = sin. The important issue is their "awareness" of their rebellion, they lost their innocence.

I'm glad some atheists don'[t have an axe to grind, it makes for a pleasant discussion all around.

You're right about the innocent thing but I think the question is why is nakedness the shame? I understand their rebellion is the shame but why would that manifest itself in the nakedness and them deciding to put leaves on their junk? Naked being seen as bad is a law made completely by society. It's not about good or evil, people just dont want to see eachothers junk. (I personally dont mind because I can do this thing called making eye-contact, but I guess if you were a midget...) Theres absolutely no reason for themselves to just all of a sudden be ashamed of their nakedness, so it seems to me that would hint too how the Bible was inspired, compiled and written completely by humans with human intentions.

Some athiests are just bigots........funny but true.

So are some religious folks. Whats your point?

[byzantineklibanophori]

When you're innocent, you're innocent.

Right and wrong is the knowledge or discernment between one thing and another.

As they were innocent, they were not aware of what was shame. Its like babies. If a baby punched your eye, is the baby evil? No! Its innocent, it did not commit a crime or anything.

"Sin" is considered an act of intention knowing the act is "wrong".

Adam and Eve were naked, not be intention or knowledge, but innocence.

Eating the "fruit of knowledge" gave them awareness of their established rebellion against God. Their awareness of their nakedness caused them shame...but nakedness is not considered a sin in itself by any means. So don't put too much stock about the idea of nakedness = sin. The important issue is their "awareness" of their rebellion, they lost their innocence.

I'm glad some atheists don'[t have an axe to grind, it makes for a pleasant discussion all around.

Some athiests are just bigots........funny but true.