Genesis - Were Humans Ever Immortal

Wildy

Adelaidean
Wildy
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,962
Location
Australia
I'm going to start with what I think this time.

No. No they weren't.

Arguing with Literalists about whether God lied regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since he said that "you will die" (Gen 3:3) if you eat from the tree.

Now I'll just point out that some of the Literalists believe that humans were immortal to begin with, and that Adam and Eve eventually dying was their punishment for eating from the tree.

I personally see one problem with that.

If you are a Literalist you hold the entire thing to be true right? Then how exactly can you say that Adam and Eve were immortal to begin with if Genesis seems to be of the opinion that they aren't.

I refer, of course, to Genesis 3:22:

Genesis 3:22 said:
Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever
Click to expand...

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds awfully like the story stating that man was mortal to begin with, and that they had to eat from a second, until then unmentioned tree, to attain immortality.

There is one other possibility that I though of with regards to this. Perhaps my specific translation of the Bible is wrong and that other translations would have a better one.
 
There is a theoretical further problem. They do believe that man is immortal -- that he has an immortal soul that persists beyond death, with death representing merely a transition from one form of life to another, but all of it amounting to continuous life for eternity.

That would imply, by the ground rules expressed in Genesis, that we are gods -- we have eternal life and knowledge of good and evil.

I see no way to make sense of all the myths. I have never been able to understand the Christian perspective that we are immortal. The primary difference between man and god was always a distinction between mortal and immortal.

Now, it might make sense to speak of what appears to have been the earliest Christian view (at least what I read to be Paul's view) -- that Jesus' sacrifice allowed man to become immortal through resurrection, but only for believers (everyone else would remain mortal and death would be the end).
 
It appears to me that nobody bothered to reconcile the various pagan creation myths with the Jewish religion when they grafted the one onto the others.
 
I think the whole "living forever" thing is just something the literalists made up, like they made up walking with dinosaurs. There is no justification that I can find for such a claim, and as you've pointed out, the "better not let them eat that that fruit too or they'll live forever" is good evidence that they were mortal to begin with.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
There is a theoretical further problem. They do believe that man is immortal -- that he has an immortal soul that persists beyond death, with death representing merely a transition from one form of life to another, but all of it amounting to continuous life for eternity.

That would imply, by the ground rules expressed in Genesis, that we are gods -- we have eternal life and knowledge of good and evil.

I see no way to make sense of all the myths. I have never been able to understand the Christian perspective that we are immortal. The primary difference between man and god was always a distinction between mortal and immortal.

Now, it might make sense to speak of what appears to have been the earliest Christian view (at least what I read to be Paul's view) -- that Jesus' sacrifice allowed man to become immortal through resurrection, but only for believers (everyone else would remain mortal and death would be the end).
Click to expand...

That makes sense in a way. I had always thought of the concept of "mortality" to be one with regards to this world. So the concept of a "soul" was one that didn't really factor into my definition.

But then now we get to another strange situation then don't we? If we have an immortal soul, then doesn't that mean that God lied? Since he said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit, but are still immortal through the soul then that means that there isn't much of a punishment then is there?

I guess this problem only work in Christianity, since IIRC Judaism doesn't have this whole "soul" and "heaven" business.
 
You could make an impressive list of the things the Bible, or even just Genesis alone, says about the past that most Christians don't know, like the references that make God look like a corporal being within this world rather than its omnipotent creator, or the creation story being told twice with events in two different orders, or the origin of carnivorosity & omnivorosity...

Maybe you could even start a thread with that list, and title the thread "Most Christians (or most Creationists) do not know what the Bible says about our origins".
 
Wildy said:
That makes sense in a way. I had always thought of the concept of "mortality" to be one with regards to this world. So the concept of a "soul" was one that didn't really factor into my definition.

But then now we get to another strange situation then don't we? If we have an immortal soul, then doesn't that mean that God lied? Since he said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit, but are still immortal through the soul then that means that there isn't much of a punishment then is there?

I guess this problem only work in Christianity, since IIRC Judaism doesn't have this whole "soul" and "heaven" business.
Click to expand...


From one prespective, yes. The gnostics even have the creator of the world -- the demiurge -- being an evil god who tries to trap the divine within the material.

I think it is virtually impossible to reconcile literally all the different parts of the mythology now and not end up with something being wrong or God lying to Adam and Eve.

Paul seems to have created whole-cloth the idea of original sin to explain why we needed Jesus' sacrifice even if we were blameless in this life. It doesn't completely fit with the Genesis account I don't think.

CainKane1 said:
Theres a portion of Genesis that seems to favor evolution. I read it in The Skeptics bible. If we evolved then we could never have been immortal.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's a pretty strange version of evolution (a weird sort of Lamarkianism where traits are acquired through magic -- goats breeding in front of striped wood and acquiring stripes and spots -- that does not fit Darwin's ideas), and it concerns only goats and for a particular purpose.

I like to point it out for rhetorical purposes too, but we can't pretend that it presages Darwin in any way.
 
Let's see--

Two naked humans, who are the product of love, live in a garden where they are protected and all their needs are met. They eat from the tree of knowledge along the way, and are forced out into the harsh real world, where they will then have to fend for themselves. The expulsion was painful, but their parental figure still loves them, teaches them, and takes care of them.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Adam's name means "man" or "first man" so he could be seen as an Everyman character in the story. Eve's name means "to breathe" or "to live" so the same is true for her. When we are conceived, we start out developing in our mother's womb, as naked as the characters in the story, where we are protected and all our needs are met. Eventually we must enter the real world. The process of childbirth is painful, which the story even mentions right before Adam and Eve are forced to leave the garden. Once outside we must live and function on our own, but our parents still love, teach, and take care of us. The acquisition of knowledge is a natural part of growing up, hence the tree symbolizes their maturation.

The story of Eden has nothing to do with original sin, and instead symbolizes something everyone could relate to. An all-knowing God not only planted the tree where humans had access to it, he also informed them about it, knowing full well of human desires and limitations. The idea that Adam and Eve caused God's creation to malfunction in some way, that they threw his plans off course, or that God could not have known what they would do, is ridiculous. It stands to reason that he placed the tree there because he actually wanted them to eventually eat the fruit. The only "sin" they committed was not eating a whole bushel full!

One could, at this point, make a joke about how the "snake" entering the "garden" results in babies being born, and this wouldn't be too far off from the truth. :D
 
Cainkane1 said:
Theres a portion of Genesis that seems to favor evolution. I read it in The Skeptics bible. If we evolved then we could never have been immortal.
Click to expand...

Genesis 1:11 -- And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree.

Genesis 1:24 -- And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Just in case anyone wondered.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
Genesis 1:11 -- And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree.

Genesis 1:24 -- And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Just in case anyone wondered.
Click to expand...


That's not evolution. It's not even materialistic monism.
 
Maybe it depends on what is the definition of life? What is your definition of life?
 
Wildy said:
Arguing with Literalists about whether God lied regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since he said that "you will die" (Gen 3:3) if you eat from the tree.

Now I'll just point out that some of the Literalists believe that humans were immortal to begin with, and that Adam and Eve eventually dying was their punishment for eating from the tree.

I personally see one problem with that.

If you are a Literalist you hold the entire thing to be true right? Then how exactly can you say that Adam and Eve were immortal to begin with if Genesis seems to be of the opinion that they aren't.

I refer, of course, to Genesis 3:22:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds awfully like the story stating that man was mortal to begin with, and that they had to eat from a second, until then unmentioned tree, to attain immortality.

There is one other possibility that I though of with regards to this. Perhaps my specific translation of the Bible is wrong and that other translations would have a better one.
Click to expand...


BS. A God who says that "if you play with my shovel, you're not allowed to play in my sandbox anymore", is A. indeed a pretty "almighty" God concerning the knowledge of what will happen anyway - and B. a pretty childish one as well...

Come again, will you?
 
Oliver said:
A God who says that "if you play with my shovel, you're not allowed to play in my sandbox anymore", is A. indeed a pretty "almighty" God concerning the knowledge of what will happen anyway - and B. a pretty childish one as well...
Click to expand...

So how do you know that this is not the God of the literalists?
 
There is nothing in the Genesis account that indicates that mankind was created immortal.
 
Radrook said:
There is nothing in the Genesis account that indicates that mankind was created immortal.
Click to expand...


But they could have been, had they eaten of a certain tree (previously unmentioned, oddly).
Correct?
 
[X] said:
But they could have been, had they eaten of a certain tree (previously unmentioned, oddly).
Correct?
Click to expand...

If by immortality you mean indestructibility regardless of behavior, then no. If by immortality you mean eternal life within the parameters of obedience then yes.
 
bokonon said:
I think the whole "living forever" thing is just something the literalists made up, like they made up walking with dinosaurs. There is no justification that I can find for such a claim, and as you've pointed out, the "better not let them eat that that fruit too or they'll live forever" is good evidence that they were mortal to begin with.
Click to expand...
Genesis is a beautiful and wonderful allegory.

Sorry for the derail but given the time frame that it was written in, I'm really awed by the literary work of Genesis.

To most if not all animals, besides humans, they don't die. They just live and one day they don't. Most animals, besides humans, don't know the difference between good and evil. At least they don't know it the way humans do.

Humans are the universe waking up and understanding itself. We have become like the gods.

It's truly unfortunate that bible litteralists had to tart up what is otherwise a truly remarkable piece of literature.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I see no way to make sense of all the myths. I have never been able to understand the Christian perspective that we are immortal. The primary difference between man and god was always a distinction between mortal and immortal.

Now, it might make sense to speak of what appears to have been the earliest Christian view (at least what I read to be Paul's view) -- that Jesus' sacrifice allowed man to become immortal through resurrection, but only for believers (everyone else would remain mortal and death would be the end).
Click to expand...
That more simply said is that we are all potentially immortal, depending upon what steps we take and what choices me make. Does that make sense to you? You are potentially a published fiction author, depending on what you write, how, and which agent/publisher you choose to work with.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom