The Forbidden Tree

[njineermike]

It was never about knowledge. It was about who should make decisions. The tree was a symbol of rulership and ownership. In the same way the tree was not man's to touch, much less eat from, so was rulership not man's. The point being that the "knowledge" was not that they would know anything more than they already did, it was that they would make independent decisions as to morality. The "nakedness" was shame, because they had never had a reason to be ashamed prior to that. God wasn't upset they were no clothing before this. They decided nakedness was shameful. Eating of the tree in the garden was usurpation of authority.

[CVShooter]

It was never about knowledge. It was about who should make decisions. The tree was a symbol of rulership and ownership. In the same way the tree was not man's to touch, much less eat from, so was rulership not man's. The point being that the "knowledge" was not that they would know anything more than they already did, it was that they would make independent decisions as to morality. The "nakedness" was shame, because they had never had a reason to be ashamed prior to that. God wasn't upset they were no clothing before this. They decided nakedness was shameful. Eating of the tree in the garden was usurpation of authority.

That is a very top-down, authoritarian point of view. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[njineermike]

That is a very top-down, authoritarian point of view. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Jeremiah 10:23

[nedro]

If that were true, then humans wouldn't be social creatures. We'd all live as hermits, either attacking or mating (or mating then attacking, or attacking then mating) with little in between. But here we are, as tribal and cooperative as ever. Babies are selfish little creatures, for sure. But they're surprisingly cooperative and empathetic as well. I don't think our nature lies in one extreme or the other. We are all squarely both at the same time.

And thus is born the, "Millennial".

[Wordupmybrotha]

If that were true, then humans wouldn't be social creatures. We'd all live as hermits, either attacking or mating (or mating then attacking, or attacking then mating) with little in between. But here we are, as tribal and cooperative as ever. Babies are selfish little creatures, for sure. But they're surprisingly cooperative and empathetic as well. I don't think our nature lies in one extreme or the other. We are all squarely both at the same time.

Humans were created in the image of God, so we share his characteristics such as desire for fellowship and relationships. Original sin didn't make humans totally evil, but it corrupted what was good.

[Wordupmybrotha]

My take on eating from the tree is man's desire to be greater than God. A creation having the arrogance to be greater than the creator. Thinking he's better and knows better than the creator. That's still our defining struggle even to this day.

[CVShooter]

My take on eating from the tree is man's desire to be greater than God. A creation having the arrogance to be greater than the creator. Thinking he's better and knows better than the creator. That's still our defining struggle even to this day.

No dispute there.

[CVShooter]

And thus is born the, "Millennial".

So many assumptions...

[njineermike]

My take on eating from the tree is man's desire to be greater than God. A creation having the arrogance to be greater than the creator. Thinking he's better and knows better than the creator. That's still our defining struggle even to this day.

This is the entire point of the bible. It's a court case. Genesis 1 and 2 are where man (and satan) decided they knew how to rule as well as the creator. Most of the rest is the prosecution's evidence proving they are wrong. Once the case is settled beyond doubt, Armageddon. After that, 1000 years where the creator rules through his son. After, all who still disagree have no footing to further argue and will no longer exist.

The real issue is the question raised. Namely, who will rule best. Satan first raised the question about rulership, and Job indicates he was able to take his defiance directly to the creator's throne. He is very influential. Consider this: angels saw the creation of the universe, and Satan was still influential enough to convince many angels to defect.

When man defected, he could simply have destroyed all those who opposed, but the question would not have been settled. If even one entity still had doubts, the question remains, and this will be repeated if not resolved.

All we see around us is the oral arguments and evidence being presented by both sides. I don't think we have much longer before the gavel comes down.

[CVShooter]

This is the entire point of the bible. It's a court case. Genesis 1 and 2 are where man (and satan) decided they knew how to rule as well as the creator. Most of the rest is the prosecution's evidence proving they are wrong. Once the case is settled beyond doubt, Armageddon. After that, 1000 years where the creator rules through his son. After, all who still disagree have no footing to further argue and will no longer exist.

The real issue is the question raised. Namely, who will rule best. Satan first raised the question about rulership, and Job indicates he was able to take his defiance directly to the creator's throne. He is very influential. Consider this: angels saw the creation of the universe, and Satan was still influential enough to convince many angels to defect.

When man defected, he could simply have destroyed all those who opposed, but the question would not have been settled. If even one entity still had doubts, the question remains, and this will be repeated if not resolved.

All we see around us is the oral arguments and evidence being presented by both sides. I don't think we have much longer before the gavel comes down.

You're definitely right about the "heavenly court" motif. Canaanite mythology has the same motif as does Greek, Roman & many other mediterranean religions. But keep in mind that the Hebrews weren't even monotheists yet -- recognizing the existence of other gods quite readily though themselves favoring only one -- YHWH.

But it wasn't until after the Babylonian exile that the Hebrews/Judeans saw Satan as an opposing force against God. Rather, at the time of Genesis, he was the prosecuting attorney, not the leader of some rebel faction or organized criminal gang. In other words, Satan conceded authority to God, the judge, and simply presented his case to make sure it was all working the way it was supposed to. He was there to challenge & test God's assumptions and the Hebrews' commitment to him, not challenge God's authority directly. After all, if God could be usurped, then he wouldn't have been God. Satan served God in this court. He wasn't the friend of God's people since he was always making his case against them. But he was a servant of God just the same.

After the Judean priesthood spent some time in exile in Babylon, they were influenced by Zoroastrians and changed their belief system a bit. Now (looking at the latter half of Isaiah and the postexilic prophets), Satan was completely separate from the heavenly court. He was a "fallen angel" or dark force in the world & at war with him.

But the author of Genesis would have had no concept of this dualistic spirituality. Genesis was written at least several hundred years before the exile. And most of what we read from the exile wasn't written for a quite while after that.

Genesis was written under the influence of the Canaanites. Canaanites were the ones who built the Solomonic temple, after all, and they readily intermarried with the invading Hebrews after the warring tensions calmed down, as the pre-exilic prophets complained about all the time. There was so much mixing and borrowing of cultures that some temples were built to "YHWH and his Asherah" (God + his female consort). There are plenty of other examples of Canaanite mixing (Daniel's apocalyptic vision, later is actually an older Canaanite tale of Ba'al and Yam's great battle, fertility cult practices all over the place at the time) but that has filled many books & I couldn't hope to do it justice.

I'll summarize by saying that a single, coherent theme across the entire Bible about a great spiritual warfare might be visible to you but you're going to have to twist the words of the authors quite a bit since many of them never had such a perspective themselves. Some of them didn't even agree with each other (the book of Judges vs Kings, Kings vs Chronicles, etc.).

I suppose you could say that God still intended what you think, regardless of what the human authors thought. But that's a tougher case to make.

**Edit**
I should add that Ba'al & Yam aren't the Canaanite equivalent of God & Satan. Ba'al is the son of El (God, often represented as a bull). Yam is the challenger in the court (often represented as a dragon). Ba'al was usually in human form, though sometimes he was wheat, barley or some other grain that died and rose again each year. El always remained the chief deity but Ba'al, being the prince (and staple food crop), was more favored. Ba'al and Yam fought for the right to rule, as princes often do. But it was always up to El.

The Bible says we were made in God's image. I became convinced long ago that we make God in our image. Again, just my opinion. Believe whatever you want.

[njineermike]

You're definitely right about the "heavenly court" motif. Canaanite mythology has the same motif as does Greek, Roman & many other mediterranean religions. But keep in mind that the Hebrews weren't even monotheists yet -- recognizing the existence of other gods quite readily though themselves favoring only one -- YHWH.

But it wasn't until after the Babylonian exile that the Hebrews/Judeans saw Satan as an opposing force against God. Rather, at the time of Genesis, he was the prosecuting attorney, not the leader of some rebel faction or organized criminal gang. In other words, Satan conceded authority to God, the judge, and simply presented his case to make sure it was all working the way it was supposed to. He was there to challenge & test God's assumptions and the Hebrews' commitment to him, not challenge God's authority directly. After all, if God could be usurped, then he wouldn't have been God. Satan served God in this court. He wasn't the friend of God's people since he was always making his case against them. But he was a servant of God just the same.

After the Judean priesthood spent some time in exile in Babylon, they were influenced by Zoroastrians and changed their belief system a bit. Now (looking at the latter half of Isaiah and the postexilic prophets), Satan was completely separate from the heavenly court. He was a "fallen angel" or dark force in the world & at war with him.

But the author of Genesis would have had no concept of this dualistic spirituality. Genesis was written at least several hundred years before the exile. And most of what we read from the exile wasn't written for a quite while after that.

Genesis was written under the influence of the Canaanites. Canaanites were the ones who built the Solomonic temple, after all, and they readily intermarried with the invading Hebrews after the warring tensions calmed down, as the pre-exilic prophets complained about all the time. There was so much mixing and borrowing of cultures that some temples were built to "YHWH and his Asherah" (God + his female consort). There are plenty of other examples of Canaanite mixing (Daniel's apocalyptic vision, later is actually an older Canaanite tale of Ba'al and Yam's great battle, fertility cult practices all over the place at the time) but that has filled many books & I couldn't hope to do it justice.

I'll summarize by saying that a single, coherent theme across the entire Bible about a great spiritual warfare might be visible to you but you're going to have to twist the words of the authors quite a bit since many of them never had such a perspective themselves. Some of them didn't even agree with each other (the book of Judges vs Kings, Kings vs Chronicles, etc.).

I suppose you could say that God still intended what you think, regardless of what the human authors thought. But that's a tougher case to make.

**Edit**
I should add that Ba'al & Yam aren't the Canaanite equivalent of God & Satan. Ba'al is the son of El (God, often represented as a bull). Yam is the challenger in the court (often represented as a dragon). Ba'al was usually in human form, though sometimes he was wheat, barley or some other grain that died and rose again each year. El always remained the chief deity but Ba'al, being the prince (and staple food crop), was more favored. Ba'al and Yam fought for the right to rule, as princes often do. But it was always up to El.

The Bible says we were made in God's image. I became convinced long ago that we make God in our image. Again, just my opinion. Believe whatever you want.

I buy absolutely none of this.

[CVShooter]

Njineermike - no worries on my end. It would take you years of study to verify all that anyway.

[billvau]

Njineermike - no worries on my end. It would take you years of study to verify all that anyway.

I agree with Njineermike. And, I've done decades of biblical study. Sorry, but your biblical interpretation isn't Christian, i.e. isn't correct.

[njineermike]

Njineermike - no worries on my end. It would take you years of study to verify all that anyway.

I've already done years of study, which is why I buy none of it.

[CVShooter]