Published by So we come to the third part of the series. But before I go further, I would like to look at some comments made in reference to earlier parts.
Reader “Question” asks me, “How can you say you are Christian and “admire the teachings of Jesus” while simultaneously refuting the Scriptures from which He taught?” My answer is why not? In every religion there is something good and noble that can be practised in our lives. For example, Islam forbids banks taking of interest against loans in order to make profits. Isn’t that a good thing? Buddhists are taught to honor their parents and other ancestors. As such, they would never think of dumping their aged parents/grandparents in homes for the aged like we do! By the way, Question, I am an admirer of the teachings of Jesus such as those in the Sermon on the Mount, which teachings were unique to Jesus and are not found in the Old Testament in the form he preached them.
My suggestion to Reader “Robert” is to read that first chapter again, and put yourself in the place of an illiterate [or semi literate] Israelite, listening to the creation account being read aloud to him. It says, “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.” [Italics added for emphasis]. You’ve got a firmament that is called ‘heaven’ between two layers of water. Later we find the sun, moon and stars placed in the firmament! Which means they are in that layer in the midst of the waters; which is as inaccurate as it can get! Surely the Creator knows better than to inspire someone to put things as they were written.
Now we come to the second chapter and we have another creation account that is slightly different from the first one: The first account speaks of God as the creator, the second one qualifies God with LORD in front. Is this the same God or a different one? It doesn’t matter! The LORD God creates man from the soil of the earth and places him in a garden that was prepared prior to the man’s creation. This garden has two special trees, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The tree of life can be accepted…every time the man felt in need of rejuvenation, he could pluck and eat of the fruit of the tree of life.
But the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What purpose did it serve, seeing the man was NOT allowed to eat of its fruit? If the result of eating this fruit was death, why have it in the first place?
This account has God creating animals and other creatures AFTER the creation of man, now called Adam, and it was Adam’s privilege to name these animals and birds. Adam is still alone though, so God performs a kind of surgery, and using some flesh and bone of Adam, makes the woman whom Adam names Eve. The author then adds his own comments, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
What’s peculiar about this account is the duplicate creation, and the mention of the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
The question is, would merely eating a fruit give you knowledge of good and bad? Really? How does ingesting that fruit change the mind/brain of the man so that he now knows good and bad? The food goes to his stomach and the brain gets changed? Of what use would such knowledge be since he was threatened with death if he ate of the fruit? This tree’s fruit gives knowledge of good and bad. Up until then, what knowledge did Adam have? He obviously had some knowledge, because he was able to name the animals and birds that God brought to him!
There’s more to come on this topic because this tree is what plays an important role in the introduction of ’sin’ into the world.
You need to go back and re-read Genesis one. Animals were created before man. If you can’t get that right you certainly can’t hold yourself as an “expert,” can you?
One additional thing, A careful reading of Chapters one and two provide general and specific accounts not “different accounts.”
Hi Gary,
Please read the accounts again. Genesis chapter one has all the other beings in the sea, land or air created before man. Genesis chapter two has, in verse 19, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof”
Remember this verse is AFTER the LORD God decides it is not right for man to be alone, and he was going to create a help meet for Adam.
Dear Truthlover, as usual, it is your understanding that is off, not the Word.
Man was undoubtedly created last for a number of reasons. The Genesis one account which is clearly a chronological account of the days of creation indicates man was made last. Secondly, it would also seem so in terms of the meaning, that man (including woman here as well) was the pinnacle of God’s creation and his naming of the animals also indicates his superior position, as does the mention of him, and not the animals being made in God’s image.
The emphasis in Genesis 2 is that the animals which God made were not suitable companions, or ‘fit’ for Adam as Eve was. There is thus a contrast between Eve’s ‘fitness’ and the unsuitability of the animals.The account in Genesis 2:4 onwards, IS an expanded account of the creation of man (as Gary said) and is not strictly chronological.
Truthlover,As for the waters above the firmament, this was already explained to you but you seem to be willingly ignoring it(or perhaps you missed the comment?). The water above the firmament most likely refers to the “Crystal Sea” of Revelation since it is in God’s abode above the heaven, with the waters below the firmament refering to earthly seas
Yes the sun and stars were put in the heaven/firmament, the firmament being between the waters does not change that,the waters above the heavens would be in God’s abode, so they would not hinder the stars and sun being in the firmament, since the firmament is BELOW God’s abode.
You lack understanding as to what the firmament is, and instead of seeking answers you assume “the scriptures must be wrong”, research better my friend, my best suggestion.
God tells us “Seek and you will find”
Dear Truthlover, let me enlighten you a bit,
You ask
“The question is, would merely eating a fruit give you knowledge of good and bad? Really? How does ingesting that fruit change the mind/brain of the man so that he now knows good and bad? The food goes to his stomach and the brain gets changed?”
The very fact that you ask this particular question shows exactly how much you don’t understand the scriptures you are thinking from a solely physical perspective.
However,
Even now, when we do wrong (whatever it may be) we innately know it, even though the action we’ve done is physical, it affects us on a spiritual level. Same here, Adam knew what he did was wrong, because God told him it was wrong.
The fruit itself had no “magical” qualities, the tree was made as the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, the sole reason for its existence was to give Adam a choice, after all forced love is not love.
Point is,
Adam could have either trusted God for knowledge, or he could choose to seek his knowledge from the tree. Choosing to seek his knowledge from the tree, was disrespecting God.
“Merely eating the fruit” was not the issue, the issue was that Adam chose to disobey God, thus showing disdain and doubt for God’s wisdom and authority.
You ask “This tree’s fruit gives knowledge of good and bad. Up until then, what knowledge did Adam have? He obviously had some knowledge, because he was able to name the animals and birds that God brought to him!”
Before the fall, Adam HAD relied on God for His knowledge, by Adam’s disobedience though, he basically said “I want to seek my own knowledge” hence, as I said he disrespected God’s authority,wisdom, and love, God is simply letting man live with the consequence of that choice.
TL, you said in response to question’s question, “My answer is why not? In every religion there is something good and noble that can be practised in our lives.”
Questions point though was the following, Jesus confirmed the validity of the OT, by you trying to refute the scriptures he taught and quoted from, you are basically accusing Jesus of lying, so how can you, after accusing him of lying, say you “admire his teachings”?
The grass withers, the flower fades: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35
“…the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:35 (Jesus’ Words)
He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear (Matthew 11:15-30)