The snake in the garden of eden

[_consiglieri]

The very fact subsequent authors of scripture found it necessary to make excuses for God to cover up this problem indicates it is an enduring problem.

Peter said a day with God is a thousand years. (This seems a pretty obvious rationale to let God off the "this day thou shalt die" hook.)

Lehi says God "prolonged their days" to give them room to repent.

As I mentioned before, the Gnostic Christians took it at face value in support of their belief that the Old Testament God was not the true God, but a fallen and benighted demi-urge.

This passage yields more questions than answers, as do all the pieces of the Eden story.

Here is my thought question that I am going to try to chew on a bit:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the author of Genesis knew perfectly well how this part of the story sounded, and yet put it in there pretty much as we have it today.

What was the author trying to teach us about God? And about Adam? And about the serpent? (I mean, it was the serpent's words to Eve that were ratified when the day ended and neither Adam nor Eve were dead.)

Sometimes I think we spend a lot of time resisting obvious meanings.

Just had a thought before I posted this--Perhaps the story indicates God and the Serpent were on more equal footing than we might think; and here we find a permutation of El's primordial slaying of Leviathian in mortal combat; only here we have not the great dragon of the chaotic waters, but the wise (wiser than God?), immortal serpent of the Garden.

Just a thought . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Hoops]

The very fact subsequent authors of scripture found it necessary to make excuses for God to cover up this problem indicates it is an enduring problem.

If it were, indeed, a fact. Fortunately, it is not.

Peter said a day with God is a thousand years. (This seems a pretty obvious rationale to let God off the "this day thou shalt die" hook.)

It's not obvious to me. It seems to me this an obvious appeal to the the majesty and magnificence of God.

Lehi says God "prolonged their days" to give them room to repent.

I'm unfamiliar with this.

This passage yields more questions than answers, as do all the pieces of the Eden story.

It's difficult work, that's for sure. But because this passage yields questions doesn't mean they can not be answered by other Biblical material.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the author of Genesis knew perfectly well how this part of the story sounded, and yet put it in there pretty much as we have it today.

What was the author trying to teach us about God? And about Adam? And about the serpent? (I mean, it was the serpent's words to Eve that were ratified when the day ended and neither Adam nor Eve were dead.)

Sometimes I think we spend a lot of time resisting obvious meanings.

I'll be interested in what you come up with after you've masticated.

[_Buffalo]

Peter said a day with God is a thousand years. (This seems a pretty obvious rationale to let God off the "this day thou shalt die" hook.)

Actually, I think the motivation for that was also to explain to the believers why the end hadn't come yet. It was supposed to be around the corner. That's why Jesus told people to quit their jobs and abandon their families. It wasn't important because the end was supposed to be so close.

[_just me]

Could someone direct me to the verse that tells us A&E were immortal before eating the fruit?

[_Hoops]

Could someone direct me to the verse that tells us A&E were immortal before eating the fruit?

there isn't one. It's reasoned from the curse given in chapter 3.

[_just me]

Could someone direct me to the verse that tells us A&E were immortal before eating the fruit?

there isn't one. It's reasoned from the curse given in chapter 3.

But the curse just says that they will die the day they eat the fruit. It does not say they are incapable of eventual death unless they eat the fruit. Immortality is nowhere implied in the Creation narrative. In fact, the curse implies that they are mortal and WILL surely die the day the eat that fruit.

[_consiglieri]

Could someone direct me to the verse that tells us A&E were immortal before eating the fruit?

I think the Book of Mormon may help in this regard.

2 Nephi 2:22--And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_just me]

Could someone direct me to the verse that tells us A&E were immortal before eating the fruit?

I think the Book of Mormon may help in this regard.

2 Nephi 2:22--And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That works for Mormons. I was curious where Christians got the idea.

[_consiglieri]

That works for Mormons. I was curious where Christians got the idea.

Since Hoops is the resident Christian, I will have to defer to him.

[_Jersey Girl]

Still hopping up and down over folks misquoting the passage.

The verse states "in the day that".....it doesn't say:

On that day
In that day
On that very day


or anything like that.

If I refer to "in the day of horse and buggy's"...is that a 24 hour day?
If I refer to "in the day of Noah"...is that a 24 hour day?
If I refer to "in the day of prohibition"...is that a 24 hour day?

If I say, as we often hear people do, "back in the day" or "back in my day"....is that referring to a 24 hour day?

Can't anyone frickin' read around here?