Thoughts on Genesis

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The text indicates that there was in fact some change in understanding right after eating the fruit.

Beside those texts I quoted that shows the change in understanding, texts like this one written by Moses indicates that there is a state of knowledge (or capability) before the fall that Eve was aware it was there.

[Genesis 3:5-6 KJV] 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw 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 of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Also, God does not sin, nor the holy angels, yet the have that "knowledge of good and evil" that the man didn't know but had to "acquire". So "knowledge" in these passages in Genesis is not to mean experience, but to mean a new state of mind, or new understanding of something.

[Genesis 3:22 NKJV] 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

The quotes I copied from Barnes' Notes adequately explain your points, I believe. They originally had a mental idea of "good and evil" by the mere existence of being given a command to obey. Therefore eating the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" did NOT result in the sudden acquisition of the idea of good and evil, or the difference(s) between them.

So then what they acquired was indeed an experiential knowledge, it was a knowledge that was acquired by an experience (the experience of disobedience to the command). Once they had willfully disobeyed the command of God, they now had the knowledge of good and evil in all its moral facets, by a direct experience.

You say "God does not sin" and therefore conclude the knowledge they gained was not experiential knowledge by virtue of disobedience. Yet God knows as surely and as thoroughly as only God can know, what the consequences of disobedience (and of obedience) are, their effects and their workings. There is none wiser than God, in spite of the fact that God is morally pure and free from the taint of sin. The man and woman "became like God" in that they now had the knowledge of good and evil not merely as an abstract idea but as experiential reality. God likewise has the knowledge of good and evil not merely as an abstract idea but as an experiential reality. The DIFFERENCE though is that God has and does always do what is right and good, and does not sin. Therefore His knowledge of good and evil is holy, and is a characteristic of His divine attributes. Adam, however, has done evil, he has disobeyed. And thus his knowledge of good and evil, though experiential like God's, is nevertheless tinged with sin and is unholy, and is now a characteristic of his fallen attributes.

I think the so-called "Philippian Hymn" plays a role here:

Philippians 2:5-11 KJV
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [9] Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: [10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Here, Christ recapitulates the act of Adam, but reverses the action and therefore the outcome. Adam attempted to seize "equality with God" by eating the forbidden fruit. Did he become equal with God? No, he fell, into shame and dishonour, and was cast out of the presence of God, and decayed and eventually died. Whereas Christ chose the path of obedience, and by doing so is exalted to the right hand of God, has immortality and glory given to Him.

All of this indicates to me that the knowledge of good and evil being discussed here is not just the mental awareness of what is good and what is evil, nor the mere mental awareness of the concept of "good and evil", but necessarily must be based on experience.

When Moses spoke of "your children who have not known good or evil", did he mean they were intellectually devoid of any concept of right and wrong? Or does he mean they had not been participating in the rebellions of their fathers in the wilderness, and likewise had not of their own volition engaged in obedience either, they being under the care and responsibility of their parents and so technically not actually liable for their own actions? They were essentially just along for the ride, not making their own decisions, and therefore not having experiential knowledge of their own moral character.

And I think that is exactly what is being described here in Genesis - the experiential knowledge of one's own moral character when faced with moral obligation, and the choice to obey or disobey, and the resultant consequences of either obedience or disobedience.

EDIT: Regarding Moses' statement, he says "in that day when your children had no knowledge between good and evil". Thus indicating they were simply too young to fully understand right and wrong, and therefore not morally accountable. Thus they not only did not have the experiential knowledge of good and evil, they apparently weren't old enough yet to have the basic mental knowledge of good and evil. In either event, either way, the knowledge of one's own moral character (which can only be obtained as a result of either the fulfillment of or failure to fulfill moral obligation, ie "experience") seems to be what is being discussed in Genesis.

[coksiw]

I find the text very clear of what Moses means to communicate. The other interpretation is based on the preposition “the text cant mean that, therefore”

Adam and Eve obviously had an understanding that not eating the fruit was good, and eating was wrong, but eating the fruit would make one “wiser” according to the text. That’s the underlying message of the text. Again, I don’t know how Moses expected the reader to understand it differently.

“Knowledge” does have an experiencial meaning as well, but the context here doesn’t point to that meaning in its semantic range according to the way it is used and it is related with other terms in the text.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The author of Genesis is Moses.

The intended audience is Israel.

The purpose is to give the Israelites background understanding as they are being delivered from Egypt via the blood, water, and Spirit of the passover, Red Sea, and the pillar of cloud (acts 2:38).

And then taken to Sinai to receive the law of the covenant.

Genesis is back drop for Old Covenant.

In Genesis 1:14 the Israelites are given the basis for the biblical calendar, The lights are placed in heavens to mark days, years, and times of the festivals such as passover.

And God created man, male and female, and gave them dominion over the earth.

Genesis is those things, but so much more than those things. Genesis is the book end to Revelation, and not just because of the physical arrangements of our Bibles, but because theologically and thematically, Genesis and Revelation are two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

Isaiah 46:8-10 (ESV),

8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose...

God declares the end, i.e. the eschaton, from the beginning (the Hebrew word in Isaiah 46:10 for "beginning" is the root word for the Hebrew name of Genesis, i.e. בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית bə·rê·šîṯ).

And like with Revelation, which calls for a symbolic and apocalyptic interpretation, Genesis does as well.

Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

We, in our modern, materialistic and scientific view of the world, see the word "earth" and think "Planet Earth". But no one called this planet we live on "Earth", in whatever language, that far back into the ancient world of the Patriarchs, or of Moses (that didn't come into play until 1515 AD with Copernicus). In fact, there are no clear verses of the Bible from the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant which unmistakably indicate the entire planet we live on is in view whenever the word "earth" is used in English. In the Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant, the Greek text is γῆ gé, and again, it is by no means certain that the entire planet is ever in view. It is more likely that the view held in the Greek text means something more like habitable land, i.e. wherever humans may dwell across the Empire and in lands beyond. While some realized the earth was a sphere, for example Eratosthenes (circa 240 BC), while Cicero (b. 107 BC), in his orations (In Catilinam) described our world as an orbis terrarum, that Latin phrase may refer more to the theatre of the world, or "sphere" of human influence, i.e. the extent of Empire, not so much a physical description of the planet, there isn't any suggestion that any use of "earth" in either Testament, means or refers to the planet.

So, when we come to Genesis with such an understanding, it is immediately and most assuredly incorrect.

The text itself, for "earth", reads הָאָֽרֶץ hā·’ā·reṣ, and means "the land". As regards "heaven", the text is הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם haš·šā·ma·yim, and means "sky", i.e. the visible heavens, in the more archaic sense of the word, i.e. not referring merely to the invisible realm of the spirit, i.e. the "place believers go when they die".

This is why, for example, Richard Elliott Friedman, in his translation of the Torah, translates Genesis 1:1 as follows:

In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth...

(Commentary on the Torah with A New English Translation and the Hebrew Text, HarperOne, 2001. See: https://richardelliottfriedman.com/p...-on-the-torah/)

The point being, there is no reason to read Genesis like a textbook about the creation of the universe from a scientifically cosmological point of view.

Rather, Genesis is what is known as a charter or origin myth. And before the word "myth" causes anyone trouble, please understand that within a theological or religious context, a myth isn't just a fanciful story that can be dismissed as made-up make-believe.

Rather, in this context, myth, as defined by Mircea Eliade, refers to "...a narration of a sacred history of how reality came into being". He further asserted in a myth "...a 'sudden breakthrough of the sacred' takes place, which 'establishes the world and makes it what it is today'".

See: https://library.acropolis.org/a-deep...mircea-eliade/

Further, Joseph Campbell eluciates four functions of myth:

The mystical (or metaphysical) function inspires in the individual a sense of awe and gratitude in relation to the mystery dimension of the universe.

The cosmological function presents an image of the universe that links local knowledge and individual experience to that mystery dimension.

The sociological function validates, supports, and imprints on the individual the norms of that society.

The psychological (or pedagogical) function serves to guide each individual through the stages of life, within the context of that culture.

See: https://www.jcf.org/learn/joseph-cam...ctions-of-myth

With this in mind, we can very much understand Genesis, especially chapters 1-11, to be "myth", as much as literal historical narrative (it is for certain narrative which describes a history, but how much is to be understood as literal is up for debate).

Two common symbols, as have already been mentioned here several times in this thread, are the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Many have attempted to understand what these two trees mean, or to what they refer. If one attempts a literal interpretation, one is at odds to explain why Adam and Eve didn't literally die when they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, even though God said they would.

But, if one see within the text a need for a symbol, to understand the text mythologically, something else, something better, presents itself.

The phrase "good and evil" in Genesis 2:9 (the first reference to the Tree), is, in Hebrew:

ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע ṭō·wḇ wā·rā. Notice how the phrase is spelled: Tet, Vav, Beit (meaning "good"), Vav (meaning "and"), and Resh, Ayin (meaning "evil), or effectively:

T O B W' R A

This phrase is orthographically, grammatically, thematically, related to the Hebrew word "Torah".

As such, we can see that, symbolically, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the Torah. Torah is Divine Instruction for Human Living in a Fallen World, teaching humanity core concepts of good and evil, and the differences thereof.

In contrast, the Tree of Life, is Christ and the Cross, and the Gift of God, i.e. Eternal Life.

So, in the first few chapters of Genesis, we have not just the contrast between two trees, but also we have Paul's revelation of salvation by grace contra works of the law (or Torah). The Genesis account of the Fall is teaching us the Torah cannot save, it cannot grant eternal life, partaking of its fruit banishes us from the Edenic Paradise of God's Presence, etc.

While there isn't anything inherently bad about the Torah--rather Paul called it holy and just and good (Romans 7:12), but only if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8), it is the Spirit which is Life (Romans 8:10). The Torah cannot grant that. Attempting to live righteously before God, without Christ and the Cross (i.e. without the Tree of Life) gets you exactly what Paul wrote about in Romans 10:3, namely, that one will go about attempting to establish one's own righteousness instead of according to the righteousness which is by faith (Romans 9:30).

This is the founding myth of Israel going back to Genesis 1-3. And like Isaiah prophesied, God declares the end from the beginning. The eschaton in The Book of Revelation shows us an "Everlasting Gospel" (Revelation 14:6), which, in the end of the book, provides us the opportunity to partake of the Tree of Life, and the River of Life, i.e. the Cross and the Spirit, and so, live eternally.

If one takes the time to consider the possibilities of understanding, and if they can let go of their modern, materialistic, scientific worldview, and be willing to read the Scriptures less literally (when called for) and more symbolically and apocalyptically, especially Genesis and Revelation, one can come away with a treasure trove of understanding that they would otherwise not be able to discover.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I find the text very clear of what Moses means to communicate. The other interpretation is based on the preposition “the text cant mean that, therefore”

Adam and Eve obviously had an understanding that not eating the fruit was good, and eating was wrong, but eating the fruit would make one “wiser” according to the text. That’s the underlying message of the text. Again, I don’t know how Moses expected the reader to understand it differently.

“Knowledge” does have an experiencial meaning as well, but the context here doesn’t point to that meaning in its semantic range according to the way it is used and it is related with other terms in the text.

This makes it even more clear what Moses was trying to communicate:

[Genesis 2:25 NKJV] 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[Genesis 3:7 NKJV] 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Moses makes it clear that there is a difference in awareness by ending Chapter 2 with the note that they were naked and had no shame. Then, comes the fall, and changes their awareness.

What experience the reader had that they could relate to clearly? The little kids, how they are naked and have no shame, and then there is an age when they start to be aware of their nakedness and the shame it is to expose it publicly. Moses was describing the innocence of a child that Adam and Eve had.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

This makes it even more clear what Moses was trying to communicate:

[Genesis 2:25 NKJV] 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[Genesis 3:7 NKJV] 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Moses makes it clear that there is a difference in awareness by ending Chapter 2 with the note that they were naked and had no shame. Then, comes the fall, and changes their awareness.

What experience the reader had that they could relate to clearly? The little kids, how they are naked and have no shame, and then there is an age when they start to be aware of their nakedness and the shame it is to expose it publicly. Moses was describing the innocence of a child that Adam and Eve had.

But how is what you are saying any different than what I posted? I don't see any fundamental difference.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Genesis is those things, but so much more than those things. Genesis is the book end to Revelation, and not just because of the physical arrangements of our Bibles, but because theologically and thematically, Genesis and Revelation are two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

Isaiah 46:8-10 (ESV),



God declares the end, i.e. the eschaton, from the beginning (the Hebrew word in Isaiah 46:10 for "beginning" is the root word for the Hebrew name of Genesis, i.e. בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית bə·rê·šîṯ).

And like with Revelation, which calls for a symbolic and apocalyptic interpretation, Genesis does as well.

Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

We, in our modern, materialistic and scientific view of the world, see the word "earth" and think "Planet Earth". But no one called this planet we live on "Earth", in whatever language, that far back into the ancient world of the Patriarchs, or of Moses (that didn't come into play until 1515 AD with Copernicus). In fact, there are no clear verses of the Bible from the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant which unmistakably indicate the entire planet we live on is in view whenever the word "earth" is used in English. In the Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant, the Greek text is γῆ gé, and again, it is by no means certain that the entire planet is ever in view. It is more likely that the view held in the Greek text means something more like habitable land, i.e. wherever humans may dwell across the Empire and in lands beyond. While some realized the earth was a sphere, for example Eratosthenes (circa 240 BC), while Cicero (b. 107 BC), in his orations (In Catilinam) described our world as an orbis terrarum, that Latin phrase may refer more to the theatre of the world, or "sphere" of human influence, i.e. the extent of Empire, not so much a physical description of the planet, there isn't any suggestion that any use of "earth" in either Testament, means or refers to the planet.

So, when we come to Genesis with such an understanding, it is immediately and most assuredly incorrect.

The text itself, for "earth", reads הָאָֽרֶץ hā·’ā·reṣ, and means "the land". As regards "heaven", the text is הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם haš·šā·ma·yim, and means "sky", i.e. the visible heavens, in the more archaic sense of the word, i.e. not referring merely to the invisible realm of the spirit, i.e. the "place believers go when they die".

This is why, for example, Richard Elliott Friedman, in his translation of the Torah, translates Genesis 1:1 as follows:

In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth...

(Commentary on the Torah with A New English Translation and the Hebrew Text, HarperOne, 2001. See: https://richardelliottfriedman.com/p...-on-the-torah/)

The point being, there is no reason to read Genesis like a textbook about the creation of the universe from a scientifically cosmological point of view.

Rather, Genesis is what is known as a charter or origin myth. And before the word "myth" causes anyone trouble, please understand that within a theological or religious context, a myth isn't just a fanciful story that can be dismissed as made-up make-believe.

Rather, in this context, myth, as defined by Mircea Eliade, refers to "...a narration of a sacred history of how reality came into being". He further asserted in a myth "...a 'sudden breakthrough of the sacred' takes place, which 'establishes the world and makes it what it is today'".

See: https://library.acropolis.org/a-deep...mircea-eliade/

Further, Joseph Campbell eluciates four functions of myth:



See: https://www.jcf.org/learn/joseph-cam...ctions-of-myth

With this in mind, we can very much understand Genesis, especially chapters 1-11, to be "myth", as much as literal historical narrative (it is for certain narrative which describes a history, but how much is to be understood as literal is up for debate).

Two common symbols, as have already been mentioned here several times in this thread, are the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Many have attempted to understand what these two trees mean, or to what they refer. If one attempts a literal interpretation, one is at odds to explain why Adam and Eve didn't literally die when they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, even though God said they would.

But, if one see within the text a need for a symbol, to understand the text mythologically, something else, something better, presents itself.

The phrase "good and evil" in Genesis 2:9 (the first reference to the Tree), is, in Hebrew:

ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע ṭō·wḇ wā·rā. Notice how the phrase is spelled: Tet, Vav, Beit (meaning "good"), Vav (meaning "and"), and Resh, Ayin (meaning "evil), or effectively:

T O B W' R A

This phrase is orthographically, grammatically, thematically, related to the Hebrew word "Torah".

As such, we can see that, symbolically, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the Torah. Torah is Divine Instruction for Human Living in a Fallen World, teaching humanity core concepts of good and evil, and the differences thereof.

In contrast, the Tree of Life, is Christ and the Cross, and the Gift of God, i.e. Eternal Life.

So, in the first few chapters of Genesis, we have not just the contrast between two trees, but also we have Paul's revelation of salvation by grace contra works of the law (or Torah). The Genesis account of the Fall is teaching us the Torah cannot save, it cannot grant eternal life, partaking of its fruit banishes us from the Edenic Paradise of God's Presence, etc.

While there isn't anything inherently bad about the Torah--rather Paul called it holy and just and good (Romans 7:12), but only if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8), it is the Spirit which is Life (Romans 8:10). The Torah cannot grant that. Attempting to live righteously before God, without Christ and the Cross (i.e. without the Tree of Life) gets you exactly what Paul wrote about in Romans 10:3, namely, that one will go about attempting to establish one's own righteousness instead of according to the righteousness which is by faith (Romans 9:30).

This is the founding myth of Israel going back to Genesis 1-3. And like Isaiah prophesied, God declares the end from the beginning. The eschaton in The Book of Revelation shows us an "Everlasting Gospel" (Revelation 14:6), which, in the end of the book, provides us the opportunity to partake of the Tree of Life, and the River of Life, i.e. the Cross and the Spirit, and so, live eternally.

If one takes the time to consider the possibilities of understanding, and if they can let go of their modern, materialistic, scientific worldview, and be willing to read the Scriptures less literally (when called for) and more symbolically and apocalyptically, especially Genesis and Revelation, one can come away with a treasure trove of understanding that they would otherwise not be able to discover.

Eliade? Campbell? Deriving meaning from the letters of words to establish connections to other words?

Bruh...

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Where did Israel gain knowledge on what was good or evil?

Romans 7:7

Romans 7:7-12 and the Tree of Knowledge:

The Law reveals sin:

Romans 7:7-12 KJV
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

In Eden, the Tree of Knowledge represents the introduction of moral knowledge and the awareness of good and evil:

You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17). When you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5).

Connections:.

*Knowledge of good and evil: Both Romans 7 and Genesis 2-3 highlight the introduction of moral knowledge.
*Commandment and prohibition: "Do not covet" (Romans 7:7) parallels "Do not eat" (Genesis 2:17).
*Sin's emergence: Paul's "sin sprang to life" (Romans 7:9) echoes the serpent's temptation and humanity's fall.
*Death and separation: Disobedience leads to death (Romans 7:10-11) and separation from God (Genesis 3:8-24).

Galatians 3:24 KJV
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The Tree of Knowledge symbolizes the Torah, highlighting moral responsibility.

Jesus fulfills and transcends the Law:

Matthew 5:17 KJV
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Romans 10:4 KJV
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

[Amanah]

Thank you everyone for posting!

[Amanah]

Genesis and Revelation, the bookends of the Bible, share rich symbolism:

*Tree of Life: Genesis 2:9, 3:24; Revelation 22:2, 14 (representing eternal life and God's presence)

*Water/River: Genesis 2:10-14; Revelation 22:1-2 (symbolizing life, renewal, and God's provision)

*Serpent/Dragon: Genesis 3:1-7; Revelation 12:9, 20:2 (representing Satan, temptation, and evil)

*Bride: Genesis 2:18-24; Revelation 19:7-9, 21:2 (symbolizing God's relationship with humanity)

*New Heaven/New Earth: Genesis 1:1; Revelation 21:1 (emphasizing God's creative power and redemption)

*Eden/New Jerusalem: Paradise lost (Genesis 2-3) and restored (Revelation 21-22)

*Covenant/Rainbow: God's promise to Noah (Genesis 9:13-17) and the new covenant in Revelation (10:1, 4:3)