The book of Leviticus is the best. Law! and how to break it!
Although I am also partial to the chapter where God gets his smiting on and there are tiny, charred, Lego skeletons.
Any of the ones where the Biblical quote has the phrase "to this day" are really amazing. But there is something disturbing about watching the massacre/execution of children at Jericho done in lego/child book style.
Wow.
Ok. This has probably caused the server at my wife's office to crash.
Did anyone notice that baby Cain and young adult moses both look like Newt Gingrich?
So I'm going through Genesis and 1) I can't believe God hadn't heard of the forbidden fruit theory of human behavior when he so tantalizingly told Adam about the apple, and 2) more seriously, did God really tell only Adam? So it's unclear whether Eve disobeyed God or Adam? Mightn't this be significant? What say the Christians?
I can't believe God hadn't heard of the forbidden fruit theory of human behavior when he so tantalizingly told Adam about the apple
Douglas Adams said something once like, a God who would do this is the kind of person who would leave a hat on the pavement with a brick under it.
Too lazy too look up the verse, but I think while God only tells Adam, it's pretty clear that Eve knows about the prohibition against the apples, because she says something to that effect to the serpent.
Of course, Genesis is still a little fuzzy on how there were days before there was a sun, so....
Yes, Eve definitely knows. My question is who told her.
She was made from Adam, and knows all that he knows?
Are ribs really that effective a vector for transmitting knowledge?
So it's unclear whether Eve disobeyed God or Adam?
Eve says to the serpent,
We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die."
It's a reasonable deduction that Adam has told Eve this. But what Adam has told Eve is not, "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree," but rather, "God says do not eat of the fruit of the tree."
So Eve is disobeying God's command, as Adam has relayed it. It might be only hearsay, to her, that it's God's command, but she has no reason to doubt Adam this early in the game.
Right?
Maybe barbecued ribs. Mmmm. Ribs.
And yeah, I think slolernr's right. The question is, what did God tell the serpent? And why was the serpent talking ?
I'm recalling in "Paradise Lost" Adam gives her a little refresher about the tree thing, but it is a refresher--it's assumed she has the basic principle down already. Perhaps via rib. Though maybe it isn't all that reliable a vector, which is why she requires reinforcement.
But the thing is, she has Adam eat the fruit of the tree, too, bringing him over to her side. Which would suggest the disobeying is of God, no? Adam doesn't seem very tough-minded, it wouldn't be very satisfying to rebel against him.
Adam: definitely not a badass.
But yeah, how does the snake know all this?
Milton had it that Satan overheard Adam & Eve talking about the tree.
2) more seriously, did God really tell only Adam? So it's unclear whether Eve disobeyed God or Adam? Mightn't this be significant? What say the Christians?
From Sarah Grimke, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes (1837)
Eve, it would seem from the history, was wandering alone amid the bowers of Paradise, when the serpent met with her. From her reply to Satan, it is evident that the command not to eat "of the tree that is in the midst of the garden," was given to both, although the term man was used when the prohibition was issued by God. "And the woman said unto the serpent, WE may eat of the fruit of the tress of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, YE shall not eat of it, neither shall YE touch it, lest YE die" [Gen. 3:3]. Here the woman was exposed to temptation from a being with whom she was unacquainted. She had been accustomed to associate with her believed partner, and to hold communion with God and with angels; but of satanic intelligence, she was in all probability entirely ignorant. through the subtlety of the serpent, she was beguiled. And "when she was that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took the fruit thereof and did eat" [Gen. 3:6].
We next find Adam involved in the same sin, not through the instrumentality of a supernatural agent, but through that of his equal, a being whom he must have known was liable to transgress the divine command, because he must have felt that he was himself a free agent, and that he was restrained from disobedience only by the exercise of faith and love towards his Creator. Had Adam tenderly reproved his wife, and endeavored to lead her to repentance instead of sharing in her guilt, I should be much more ready to accord to man that superiority which he claims; but as the facts stand disclosed by the sacred historian, it appears to me that to say the least, there was as much weakness exhibited by Adam as by Eve. They both fell from innocence, and consequently from happiness, but not from equality.
Thanks, eb. That's interesting, but a being whom he must have known was liable to transgress the divine command, because he must have felt that he was himself a free agent seems to assume too much.
I can't vouch for Grimke's interpretation, especially since I've only read excerpts, but Grimke had a classical education and went back to the ancient languages to read the Bible.
Incidentally, she was born into a slave-owning South Carolina family but she (and her sister) became abolitionists and feminists. Whenever I hear someone argue that so-and-so will grow up to believe X because so-and-so is being raised in an environment that believes X, I think of people like her.
The Douglas Admas passge slolernr mentioned:
''Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting `Gotcha'. It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.''
''Why not?''
''Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.''
What's the big deal about having a brick under a hat? You can still pick up the hat. You might kick it once but not again. I don't understand.
Apparently it was a one of the classic practical jokes in England back when hats were more common. Why it was common to indiscriminately kick hats rather than picking them up puzzles me too.
You might kick it once but not again.
But you only have to kick it once to really hurt your toe, just as you only had to eat the apple once to get kicked out of Club Paradise.
But you only have to kick it once to really hurt your toe,
Yeah, if you have completely sucky shoes.
Boy, this is bringing back some memories. As a kid, a friend and I buried some rocks inside a sand castle, and talked some other kid into kicking it. Call me Yahweh.
That didn't make the list?
(Link is not actually to the right post.)
It was funny, and I seem to recall him deserving it, and he wasn't actually hurt, just embarrassed.
I believe Yahweh tried to use that same excuse.
Nobody begged me to take mercy on him. (Should add: I was probably around seven at the time.)
He deserved it because he had been worshipping a golden calf.
Someone is searchenginebombing google?