Genesis 3

[Drich]

.

Also, bullshit they were immortal before. God states specifically that they weren't. The text doesn't support that they were. They had not eaten of the tree of life, so they were not immortal. There is no justification in the text of genesis to see any other meaning. God lied. He lies from time to time in the bible, it happens.

But then again, I'm simply reading the text as written. :p

Where?

[Cyberman]

"God" offered the 'tree of life'?

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

To quote Brother Drich: where?

[IATIA]

All a myth?

Of course. Same stories, just different gods. As they say, "Once you understand why you have dismissed all the other gods, you will understand why I have dismissed yours".

[Tonus]

I find a lot of Genesis unintentionally funny. Wait until you get to the part where Adam is lonely so god brings him the animals to name. Only after Adam names the animals does god realize that there is no mate among them suitable for the human.

That's in the second account. The first creation account tells us that he created them both and gave them the run of the planet (Genesis 1:27-30). It is the second creation account that places limitations on them (put in the garden of Eden, told not to eat from a certain tree) and staggers their creation so as to place the man above the woman.

[Drich]

"God" offered the 'tree of life'?

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

To quote Brother Drich: where?

I see your verses 22-24 and raise you a 2 and 3

2 The woman answered the snake, “No, we can eat fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But there is one tree we must not eat from. God told us, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. You must not even touch that tree, or you will die.’”

Meaning they had access to ALL the trees in the garden EXCEPT the tree of knoweledge of Good and Evil. This includes the tree of life. Why would their be temptation on one tree's fruit if there were others who had yet to be sampled?

Temptation comes in the forbidden when all other options become boring. If Adam and Eve spent all the time in the garden that it took for the rest of the world to develop, even if the garden was 2/3's the size of North America, that means they would have seen and done everything their was to do in the garden 1000 times over. There was a reason they were both in proximity to the tree of knowledge/the last unknown in the center of the garden.

When they ate of the fruit their immortal lives ended/they died that very day, just like God promised.

Something they could have remedied by eating from the tree of life again.

[robvalue]

The story was so good he wanted to tell it twice.

"Did you hear me, you twats? I said I created the fucking universe! Listen this time!"

"Who is that weird guy over there?"

"Just ignore him, he's the village drunk."

[Chas]

All a myth?
Nearly every day you guys prove the blame shift game is still in high gear.

What does that even mean?

[Natachan]

Prof is spouting jibberish. After all, I'm discussing literature. I don't know what he's getting at.

I take the two accounts as two different authors. Like in exodus where Moses goes up the mountain and gets different sets of tablets. Or the variations in pagan myths of the same time and place. Subtle variations are common, and when the stories were being written down they just included both.

[robvalue]

Well if the story said Adam shoved the apple up his arse and a tree grew out of it, you'd believe that too.

At what point would it stop being believable?

[Cyberman]

So this god offered all the trees except one which it pointed out specifically not to eat from, diverting attention from the other magic tree of which no mention is made until after the choice, then locks it away to make sure nobody eats from it

Yep, that positively screams "offered" to me.

Imagine a game show. In the final round I show you a hundred identical boxes, or at least similar enough to be identical for practical purposes. Unknown to you, most of them are just plain boxes, nothing special. I tell you to pick any box you like - except that one over there, which you absolutely must not touch.

I go away for five minutes then come back to find you opening the forbidden box. I get so angry that I kick you out of the studio, throw your clothes after you and lock all the doors. Then I take the other special box containing the grand prize of eternal life, one that I never mentioned before, and lock it in an electrified safe so nobody can have it.

Was that prize freely offered? Did I over-react? After all, if I behave like that because you chose the box I manipulated you into choosing, what would I have done had you accidentally picked the star prize? Especially given the disparity between them (realisation you're naked vs eternal life).