>> RTB had said:
>> Nothing requires that Adam had no knowledge of
>> wrongdoing before he disobeyed God and ate from
>> the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis
>> 3:11b)
> -
> sophia perennis said on May 12, 2:42 pm:
> *boggles*
It shouldn't boggle our minds to consider that the
tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9)
could refer to an adult's knowledge of good and evil
(Hebrews 5:14) as opposed to a child's, which need
not be bereft of any sense of wrongdoing. God in His
perennial wisdom wouldn't have bothered to command
Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good
and evil (Genesis 2:17a) if Adam had had no sense
that to disobey a command of God was wrong (Genesis
3:11b); nor would God have bothered to warn Adam that
if he disobeyed God he would die (Genesis 2:17b), if
Adam had had no sense that to die was a bad thing.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Risto Karttunen said on May 13, 12:04 am:
> I would like to see the original sin as a
> capability which isn't inherently _bad_.
While all sin is inherently bad (Romans 6:23), the
capability to sin isn't inherently bad insofar as it
derives from our having free will. If we had no
capability to sin, we would have no free will; we
would be mere robots, instead of the living children
of God (Ephesians 5:1, Galatians 5:13).
*******
(A Subsequent Post)
>> RTB had said:
>> It wasn't curiosity that did Eve in, but a subtle
>> deception by the serpent (2 Corinthians 11:3).
> -
> Risto Karttunen said on May 13, 12:21 am:
> I see the serpent as the embodiment of that
> curiosity (or consciousness). But it is interesting
> in itself that there was a serpent rather than a
> goat or a duck.
The literal serpent of 2 Corinthians 11:3 is the
literal serpent of Revelation 12:9, Satan, who isn't
the embodiment of curiosity or consciousness, but of
deception and disobedience (1 John 3:7-10), of murder
and lies (John 8:44), no matter how he may make
himself appear (2 Corinthians 11:14) to those he
wishes to deceive and murder (1 Peter 5:8).
>> RTB had said:
>> Most of what the Bible teaches is quite plain, so
>> that no interpretation is needed; and those
>> teachings which are not so plain are usually made
>> plain by comparing them with other, similar
>> teachings in the Bible (Isaiah 28:10).
> -
> Risto said:
> Some interpretation is always needed when reading
> texts which are several thousand years old. The
> reader has her own background, culture, language,
> knowledge about history etc.
Interpretation isn't always needed even when reading
texts which are several thousand years old. The
reader of the Bible will pleasanly find that her or
his own background, culture, language, knowledge
about history, etc., are no barrier whatsoever to
understanding the plain teachings of the Bible (e.g.
Matthew 7:12a), which are applicable in all cultures
(Revelation 5:9b) and in all ages (Hebrews 13:8).
|
