She’s an astute reader, a lot of these contradictions seem to go over peoples heads

It is so refreshing to see a creator who clearly is able to think and to shape her thoughts into words - she is ways above so many of the people you usually debunk after your "all right, let's see it!" ;-)

She is a prime example of why there are certain people on earth today who absolutely do not want critical thought to be encouraged amongst the lay folk. People would think our ways out of the wet paper bags that we've been given.

she is very astute for her age. She's asking some very good questions. That Christians that live the whole lives at church never asked.

How is death a threat to people who have no idea what death is?

A modern variation on the fall is the story of the magic mirror. Where the user asks about perfection and feels ashamed when they find out.

She is on the money. Dan basically just said the same thing in a lot more words - explaining HOW the Bible got to be a confusing mess. I appreciate that, but I also appreciate the work of the creator of the original video Dan was reacting to.

I like Alter’s translation of Genesis 2:17. “for on the day you eat from it, you are doomed to die.” It helps the narrative flow a lot better.

Just found your channel. While I lack the scholarly background you have, your reading and understanding of “Scripture “ is a delight. Thanks!!!!

“Were they sinners from birth? Were they running around naked on earth?” LOL!!

I love the juxtaposition between the passionate girl and the deadpan follow up confirmations. They would do a video together

So in 2 days we've had "is jesus god ?" and "why is Genisis tosh/full of contraductions ?" Not backing away from the big stuff ! I like it !!!

There are many other contradictions in early Genesis: for example, the way the Earth formed and the order in which life is created.

I feel like I’ve always believed in Evolution more the the Creation (even when others were discouraging me from doing so), so I had to think of how I’m supposed to understand Genesis on its own terms. I have to say that your content has helped me understand them in a more nuanced way and I’m super grateful for that.

This is why the Bible is so not believable

and that just proves that man made his god in his own image

Its very refreshing to Sistas use critical thinking to break free from these mythologies.

So. I made a garden. And in the middle of it, I put a magic tree [Gen 2: 9] just to mess with everybody. If anyone eats the fruit, they will gain knowledge of right and wrong. Then I put the twins (they share most of the same DNA [Gen 2: 21]) in the garden to live there, and I told them that if they eat the fruit of the magic tree that they will surely die on that day [Gen 2: 17]. That's not true, of course. I lied just for convenience. We all do. I just didn't want them to understand the difference between right and wrong. Because reasons. I am not omniscient, and I have no idea if they will eat the fruit or not. If I had knowledge of the future (or any amount of reasonable forethought) I wouldn't have put that tree in the Garden to begin with. Really, I put the tree there solely for meeting out punishment, if the kids ever do eat from it. Keep in mind that the kids DON'T KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, nor do they really fathom what death is. Oh, also I put talking snakes in the garden. Just for fun. [Gen 3: 1] So this one snake has to go and ruin the whole thing, and tells her the truth: that if she eats the fruit, she will NOT die, but rather that she will learn to understand the difference between right and wrong. [Gen 3: 5] So she eats the fruit, DOESN'T die like I said she would, _and_ gives the fruit to her brother. Then when I get back (hey, I can't be everywhere at once, you know) [Gen 3: 8], I find out they both ate the fruit, and I'm mad because now they know right from wrong, which they DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE they ate the fruit, and had no ability to understand NOT to eat the fruit until AFTER they ate it. And also, now they know that I lie. THANKS, snake! Because she listened to the snake and ate the fruit, I curse her with painful childbirth far worse than what I originally had planned for her. [Gen 3: 16] Because he listened to her and ate the fruit, I decide that he has to work fields to produce agriculture. That's punishment enough for him. [Gen 3: 17] R/AmItheAsshole

Biblical literalism can be a real mind screw. Interpreting Adam and Eve as allegories of the first peoples makes a lot more sense.

Dan, I attended a progressive seminary, and I’m curious on your thoughts on this reading that I learned about: my OT professor read the Deuteronomistic history using “death” as a stand-in for exile or separation from the land. The two examples that spring to my mind are obviously Genesis, and also in Deuteronomy 30:19 when Moses says he set before the Israelites “life and death,” after reading the law. His contention was that post-exilic authors would have seen the lack of observance of the law as the reason for their exile, just like Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden.

I notice that Genesis also says God chose the trees in Eden for being "pleasant to the sight and good for food", so if the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not to be eaten, then it was presumably there for purely aesthetic reasons. Whether the fruit of that tree was toxic, or whether it conferred divine abilities of which Man is not supposed to posess, it still seems like a remarkably irresponsible place for a decorative plant. This, in my opinion, is why large projects like Creation should be a collaborative effort, rather than left in the hands of lone, inexperienced deities.

We modern readers tend to get caught up in things needing to _always_ be congruent and make sense. Ancient peoples did not have an issue with this at all. The practice of putting, what were essentially, made up speeches into the mouths of various political and religious leaders was commonplace back then. They had a different relationship with what "truth" meant than we do today, and they were perfectly fine with accepting meaning over accuracy as the most important aspect of a story.

my guy...i have found a new favorite channel. im a christian, but i see allot of people believing blindly the bible.. love the way you analyse and think carefully your point of view

"Simply does not happen" can be said about a lot of the "prophecies'" as well. Much like the second coming.

Another problem is that you can't "obey" any commandment when you have no knowledge of good and evil, which A & E did not until after they ate the fruit that gave them that discernment. Myths are not rational.

I was 16 when I first read the bible as a book instead of random daily verses. And then I realized this is 100% man-made there is no way that an omnipotent god would commit so many mistakes. Even the devil can inspire clearer messages to his followers according to Christians who say that everything is diabolic.

So, I just heard, yesterday, a new concept to me.....that whoever wrote the bible, borrowed from Plato.....that all the stories could very well have been written by a single person, but that person had studied Plato Meaning Genesis 1 & 2 were both written at the same time It made me really think

Everything before CHRIST & after CHRIST emulates CHRIST

Thanks for this explanation. I think that it makes more sense that the death threat is a white lie, just like you say in your example of a hyperbolic threat from a parent. I think it takes more mental gymnastics or theological interpretation to make it not a lie.

They did die in one day - one of Jehovah the Father's 'days' (i.e. within 1000 years). Notice that in the Biblical record not a single human lives beyond 1000 years. In order for us to live forever we must have access to the 'Tree of Life', which Adam and Eve were kept away from once they sinned, but in God's Kingdom (at the end of Revelation) the 'Tree of Life' returns and we are able to eat its fruit and live forever. Much peace and love.

By saying "on this day you will dxx", that could be in a figurative sense, as in they became mortal on that day, i.e., signing their own dxxth warrant, which is normally how the consequence of eating the fruit is interpreted. So they did dxx on that day, but in the sense of converting themselves into a state where they eventually would dxx instead of not dxxng if they kept obeying the command.

My guess was that G2 had suffered from editor’s “fatigue:” that they changed some things from an earlier version where Adam did die in some sense but those changes inserted contradictions that they didn’t notice or couldn’t iron out.

Getring kicked out of where you aren't appreciated is a blessing, not a curse.

Her last observation is one I asked in Bible School and got in trouble and kicked out. Your replies are so helpful. Thank you

This is maybe the first #maklelan video I've seen where the original poster might be enlightened by the scholarship

Two things: It's been pointed out that there are at least two writers of the book of Genesis. One consistently refers to God as Elohim, while the other one uses the Divine name. You seen the story of Noah where one writer has Noah taking two of every animal, but the other writer mentions seven of every clean animal. Also, in regards to Adam dying when he eats up the fruit.... Some say that spiritual death is what occurred, rather than the more obvious physical death. You could also say that on the day that they ate the fruit, they began to die. Of course, Adam lived hundreds of years, but he did eventually die. Had they not eaten the fruit, they would have been immortal.

This is me in middle school. I think I was an atheist but was brainwashed to stay due to fear of hell (also, as a kid, I couldn't refuse to go to church).

The thing about Eve and the Serpent is that Eve never actually heard the Lᴏʀᴅ God give that commandment not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She was too busy _not having been created yet_ when the Lᴏʀᴅ gave Adam that commandment. The sequence of events in *Genesis Chapter 2* after Adam was placed in the Garden to keep and dress it: • The Lᴏʀᴅ commands Adam to freely eat of any tree in the Garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil • There is no help meet found for Adam. • So out of the ground the Lᴏʀᴅ made every beast of the field and bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatever name he gave them was the name of that type of animal henceforth. • _Still_ no help meet found for Adam. • The Lᴏʀᴅ caused a deep sleep (anesthesia?) to come over Adam, and did a little divine surgery to remove a bone (often translated “rib”) and from that made a woman. • Adam wakes up and meets the woman, declares her to be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and names her “Eve,” for she is the mother of all living. Now, maybe the Lᴏʀᴅ did repeat His commandment to Eve later, or maybe Adam told her second-hand, because she _did_ know about it in Chapter 3 when the Serpent asks her about it, but we’re not actually shown her learning of this commandment.

A DAY WITH THE LORD IS LIKE A THOUSAND YEARS

i LOOOOVE her attitude love it

Do you think you'll ever do a playlist of videos breaking down each book of the bible from start to finish?

I don't think that interpreting gen 2 as god lying is tenable, that simply could not have been the authors intention.

So, has no major scholars come to the conclusion that the death God was referring to was simply the loss of immortality by being kicked out of Eden?

And also, if we take Genesis 4 literally, doesn't it render the whole original sin passed on to every people senseless?

Do you agree with biblical scholar Peter Enns that Adam story is the story of Israelite origins and not about the first humans?

I grew up JW. We tried so hard to make the Genesis chapters make sense in light of science but if the science says something different we rejected the science or have was aren't l alternate explanation, but we accepted an old expanding universe and a rotating globe earth. Yet we fiercely denied evolution. It was quite the amalgam of liberal/conservative/common sense and insanity.

I always read it as upon eating the fruit Adam would become susceptible to physical death. However, another reading is spiritual death. He would become spiritually dead, that is separated from God.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE ADAM GOT FROM THE TREE WAS 2FOLD: 1 THEY WERE NAKED 2 HE COULD SEW CLOTHES.... BUT NOT JUST ANY CLOTHES- ADAM CREATED A CAMOUFLAGE PATTERN THAT EVEN GAWD COULDN'T SEE THEM!

A special take on eating the apple is from Adrian Bliss. Called: Eve has had enough. One of the funniest videos ever made

Frankly, it never occurred to me that Genesis 2 and 3 were written before and separately from Genesis 1, though it seems obvious to others. I just Googled this, and was very surprised. This shattered a lot of my paradigms, but rather than resist it, I am going to rethink my beliefs, rather than resist the new knowledge, which is which any rational person should do. The topic of this video was "making sense of the story of Adam and Eve". I would like to add something that adds more sense to me and doesn't make God out to be a liar: One question I do have is the meaning and use of the word day [yom]. According to Strong's Concordance, this word can mean a number of things: day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 as a division of time a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime (pl.) time, period (general) year I don't need to cite you the passages where "day" or "days" has different meanings. I'm sure you know these better than I do, but could it be that the days of creation were not meant to be literal 24-hour days, and when God says that "in the day that thou eatest thereof", was not also a literal 24-hour day?

I've heard apologists say that the "death on the very day" was a spiritual death. He didn't die physically, but was spiritually dead. How does this idea factor into this?

One mistake here is that Adam and Eve were not expelled from the Garden because they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but because God was concerned, after that, that they might go on to eat from the tree of life. In the English of the NRSV, God expresses his concern. He says, What if the man should now eat from the tree of life and become immortal like us? Then it says, Therefore God sent the man out of the Garden. The "therefore" refers back to God's concern over them becoming immortal. They were not expelled as a direct result of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For that they were cursed.

One thing I have heard someone say is that a day to god is 1000 years and neither Adamn and Eve lived to be 1000 years old, thus in that single day to God they died.

The original user of literature was too help people understand the world and how to deal with it. Most people didn't read until a few centuries ago, so these were oral stories. They started out as instruction but quickly became coercion, deliberate attempts to control how people behaved. "Should" was introduced and then "must". "You must do your work in the field", "what if i don't want to work?" "God orders you to work and if you disobey God will punish you." "What can God do to me?" "God can take your food." "I don't care, I'll get my own food." After awhile, "God can see to it that when you die you experience eternal torture, do you dare disobey him now?" They figured out how to scare must people into doing whatever they wanted. It has nothing to do with an actual "God", it was just controlling people, "politics". It still is, that's all it has ever been.

In much of the debates between atheists and theists about the contents of the bible, it isn't made clear to the audience that the scholarship already knows it was stitched together, sourced from many authors over many centuries and from many cultures. The contents are also not in the order in which they were written. The consequences are that parts of it have been modified over time in an attempt to make it all congruent but it's difficult to reconcile all of them.

I always read the thing about eating the fruit and dying as implying the fruit itself was poisonous. That allows the serpent to truthfully inform eve that it is actually safe to eat. God doesn’t say “if you eat the fruit I will kill you”. If he had then the boundaries would have been clear. Adam and Eve would have known that there wasn’t anything wrong with the fruit it was just arbitrarily off limits and they’d be punished if they ate it. In that situation the snake couldn’t have “tempted” Eve because she would have known that however safe and whatever knowl the fruit could give were irrelevant, because god would immediately kill her so she couldn’t benefit

Note Gen 2.17 does not say drop dead, "for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” It could imply that humans would have lived forever if they had not eaten the fruit. 3.22 "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Can you give links to what your saying/claiming? I enjoy listening but I get lost when the videos are so short and there’s no links to the information your providing.

I love hearing a young woman speak about weighty subjects

The story of Adam and Eve sounds exactly like the many ancient creation myths and folk tales from around the world. Presenting all the animals to Adam to find a helper - and failing? Right out of a storybook. Making Eve out of a piece of Adam? Sounds like something from Greek mythology.

Thank you for the clarifications. I really appreciate it. It is so much easier now to consider the Bible theology/narratives as certainly not more important/true compared to the Polynesian csomogonies/theologies. Polytheism is awesome and much more considerate of the natural elements of the world.

I love the narrative of Adam and Eve from a literary perspective. The trying to encroach and deity and being punished is super interesting to me as a reader. I also like the stories of Prometheus, Babel, and Icarus.

The Creator's name is Seraphina Simone ..... let's put so respect on her name!

You make sense of all this. Thank you!

And let's not forget that if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil then they would not know the difference and therefore were not worthy of being punished. Another thing I find interesting is that there's the part in Genesis where God is walking through the Garden of Eden and cannot find Adam and Eve because they are hiding. Say what? But in any case, the more I find out about how the bible came together and how haphazard its construction really was there is ZERO chance that this book was not entirely written by human beings.

Considering how much of a stitchwork the bible is, and that other people existed besides Cain and so on, is there any point in the young earth creationists arguing that you can add the ages of the lineage from adam and eve to arrive at a 6000 year old earth? I mean, the conclusion is obviously wrong anyways, but i wonder if thats even a valid point to make, if the bible already assumes there to be a populated earth anyways.

As the 'god' of Genesis is pretty clearly not all knowing, as billed, perhaps the god was not lying when it said "in that day you will die," but instead underestimated Adam and Eve's resilience. God, "If you set the toaster to '3,' the toast will be ruined!" Well, actually- I did set the toaster to 3, and while the toast *was* very dark, it wasn't actually blackened, nor was it inedible.

I noticed there are two different stories of Creation decades ago. Now I know why . Whenever anyone has told me that the Bible is "infallible" I tell them about such contradictions. I worship G*d & not a book.

In regards to eve and being told they would die,couldn’t that have meant she will eventually die as opposed to having immortality?

When you use the 1 day=1,000 years principle mentioned in 2 peter 3:8 and line up the length of Adam’s life with a day. It’s nearly spot on. He did in deed within a day.

How are we establishing that chapter 2 was written before chapter 1? What data proves that?

All the same principle of Adapu in the Sumarian

“ the serpent probably knows there will be some sort of punishment coming for disobeying god “ why ? Has anyone disobeyed god before ? Is the serpent a judge of divine character ? Can the serpent prophesy ? More importantly if Eve was going to be punished the serpent was going to be punished. If the serpent set themselves up for divine punishment , they were sacrificing themselves so that humans could gain the knowledge of good and evil. Is that reflected anywhere else in the text ?

The story of Cain and able is about the first homside. It doesn't say they are the first children. And clearly they aren't because Cain married his sister. It is simply the first homside and the ramifications of that.

The fact that the Bible has different writers who mention different things at different times and then tried to place them in their correct order does not mean those things are false, made up or confusing. 1.) Genesis 1 is describing the spiritual organization of the Earth and all things upon it - including the spirits of Mankind. This is why Genesis 2 claims, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (Genesis 2:1) What is the very first verse of Genesis 2 referring to if the events in Genesis 1 did not happen? Everything that ever would exist on Earth physically was first organized spiritually. The "male and female" in Genesis 1 refers to all the host of Heaven - God's children - who were to live upon the Earth as Mankind. They had been created before they became mortal. Genesis 2 also stated, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." (Genesis 2:4-5) Even though "all the host" of Heaven and Earth had supposedly been created - there were no plants or Man upon the Earth - Genesis 1 was describing things spiritual - for the plants existed "before it was in the earth" and "before it grew" physically upon it. The only instructions or commandments that the spirits of Mankind received from God in Genesis 1 were to be "fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion" (Genesis 1:28) - showing that Man's ability to multiply and their desire to cultivate and subdue the Earth by way of their dominion over it are spiritual in nature. This is why the Garden is not mentioned in Genesis 1. Why the formation of Man's body from the dust is not mentioned in Genesis 1. Why the first Man's name is not mentioned in Genesis 1. Why the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not mentioned in Genesis 1 or God's command that Adam not partake of its Fruit. Why the terms "woman", "mother", "father" and "wife" are not mentioned in Genesis 1. These are physical things and Genesis 1 does not reference anything that happened physically upon the Earth. 2.) God does not lie. God explained to Adam that if he were to partake of the Fruit that he would surely die - that day. Not that moment. Two deaths entered the world when Adam and his wife partook of the Fruit. They became mortal - thus subject to eventual physical death. Yet - the moment they transgressed God's Law and gained Knowledge of Good and Evil - the capacity for sin entered into them - which is spiritual death. The "death" that God was referring to was this 'spiritual death' - which is separation from God - not physical death. In the day that Adam and his wife partook of the Fruit they were cast out of the Garden as well as God's presence. They could no longer enjoy being in the presence of God. They were cut off. They were dead spiritually. Which is why they and their offspring began offering sacrifice - for they knew and understood that they needed reconciliation with God. God does not lie. 3.) The serpent lied to the woman. The serpent shared a truth and a lie to the woman in order to deceive her. She had no Knowledge of Good and Evil at the time. No comprehension or understanding of the concept of deception. The serpent led with the lie - that they would not die - both Adam and his wife were cast out of the Garden (spiritual death) and they aren't alive anymore (physical death). And as was pointed out - Man became more like God when they obtained Knowledge of Good and Evil - and both the serpent and God agreed on that point because it was the truth. Satan will tell 99.9% truth in order to inject that .1% falsehood. 4.) There were no human beings upon the Earth before Adam and Eve. As was pointed out the chapters in Genesis were not all written by the same people and they were not all written in chronological order. Genesis 5 records that Adam had Seth when he was one hundred and thirty years old and that he begat sons and daughters after Seth. There is no reason to assume that Adam did not have any children before Seth - the writers simply did not mention them. The idea that Adam and Eve would go almost a century and a half without conceiving is preposterous. The reason Seth was mentioned first was because of his significance. He was the son of Adam who was chosen by him to receive the ordination of the Priesthood. Which is why Genesis 5 describes Seth as being in both the image and likeness of Adam and why the record follows his lineage from then on. Genesis 4 was later written and inserted not only because those events happened before the birth of Seth but because it describes the first significant tragedies to happen to Adam's family - the first murder and the schism of Cain's seed from the Patriarchs. For whatever reason - these tragedies were not considered important or relevant to whoever wrote Genesis 3 and 5 - or perhaps they did not wish to include them - yet someone saw value in them and included them. The fact that the record mentions only these three sons by name and focuses on their lineages (or lack considering Abel) does not mean that there were no other children had by Adam and Eve either before or after Cain, Abel and Seth. These three sons were involved in these first significant events - the first murder, the schism in Adam's family and the choosing of the heir of the Priesthood. There is no reason to assume that there were non-Adamite human beings on the Earth. No reason to assume that there weren't other sons and daughters born before or after Cain, Abel and Seth.

Well, this is where the spirit of the letter takes flight from scholarly works.

Wow what a great video

Have a look at Ezekiel 33, esp. vss 13-16. Ok, it doesn't say that Adam and Eve repented, but it does show God can go back on what he says in certain circumstances.

Where can we see the evidence of chapter 2 being written before chapter 1 please?

I hope you read this comment DAN because I was told that originally, God created ADAM as both Male and female and that he was to find a helper among the animals and trees. And also the term "THEM" was used to make it seem like he was both. Then in Chapter two, the separation was made and with adams ballum, he created EVE. I also say this because Marriage makes them one FLESH AGAIN.....which would mean that at one point adam was male and female....maybe I should make a video about that have you respond.

This is how I understand it from my studying…. Adam and Eve were made to live forever, but since they ate of the tree of knowledge now they are mortal and “will surely die”

Theologically, I'm not sure which is worse: (i) God lied, or (ii) God backed down after realizing that his hyperbolic bluff was called by Adam and Eve and quickly changed the rules. The problem with the first scenario is clear: How do we then trust God? But even the second scenario presents similar problems: How do we know God won't change his mind again; i.e. what is to stop God from looking down on his children suffering eternal torment and saying, "Wait a tick, am I the baddie?"

It seems that the stories are oriented to discouraged learning, understanding, higher knowledge.

I think it's awesome writing. The serpent is using a truism to deceive Eve. Truism is the best deception. She wouldn't die per her perception of death but she would die in a way beyond her perception. She would gain "wisdom". There was one thing they were not allowed to do and no reason to do it. So they were given a reason to do it. I suspect I would have done the same thing. Makes sense. This is all just my rationalization and I like it. I think it's a great story. They didn't do it because they were told not to do it. They did it because reason was provided. Freewill is not the issue.

A rebuttal to Day and Barr: wouldn't God already know that the hyperbolic threat wouldn't work? Or do they think that God is not all-knowing? Ignoring the fact that neither Adam and Eve knew they were doing wrong, since they hadn't yet eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, _how_ could they have known? That's always bothered me - the God of Genesis is not a kind nor loving God, nor even a just or merciful God. I do like your comparison and analysis of the story as part of the local mythology trying to draw the line between human and divine. I have always been interested in the changing relationship of humans to gods based on when and where these stories originate and are retold. I do wish you had included a link to the original video you are commenting on.

❤❤❤

On this one, both missed. They've apparently never seen K-Dramas or Pulp Fiction.

1. Okay, it’s not Genesis 1 happened then Genesis 2 happened, you can say Genesis 2 is expansion of the the 6th day of Genesis 1. 2. He did not lie because if he hadn’t eaten it then he’d still be alive. He didn’t specify when he’d die, he didn’t say he’d die on the spot, he just said that he would die. 3. It’ll be a personal rationalization of mine.

"the eyes of both of them were opened". I've often thought that Genesis 3 might be interpreted as becoming self aware. They were previously like other animals that aren't conscious of who they are or what the future might hold.

If God has the qualities that are standard Christian dogma, it's pretty hard for me to see how God would have to trial-and-error the introduction of human beings. Beyond this, the Old covenant doesn't seem to have had the effects intended, and so we have a New covenant, complete with a "sacrifice" that's not really permanently sacrificial. And so on... The bottom line for me, after having read the entire Bible multiple times, and having studied the various portrayals of deity throughout the entire corpus, is that God is a developing concept throughout the creation of the texts that are now canonical. It's frustrating to see the dogma that has arisen, being treated as if it's ALWAYS been fixed in the shape it has today, without any awareness of its malleable nature over the centuries. The creation of this God concept is a subject that's very interesting to me, but something that I think most Christians would view as blasphemy, or worse. In the meantime, Dan, thank you for providing entre into the world of scholarly study of our religion(s).

There are elements that may explain these issues using cultural background. Adam and Eve dress themselves with the leaves of a specific tree (their own justice) but then God killed two animals and dress them with their skin. (They wore the substitute sacrisfice) the problem with the Bible is that we are not the intended audience, and there is a lot of anachronisms in modern interpretations.

Dr. Dan - I am sincerely asking you the question as a truth seeker. What do you say is the way to eternal salvation?

The more I learn the more I wonder about what is truth and what is not. The Bible has a lot of wisdom, but I never started reading the Bible for wisdom, I wanted truth. I never understood if a message was so detrimental to our existence, why it would be written in Binary, and like you have said before need to be interpreted by people who truly understand.

So is it safer to say God threatened them with a lie and the serpent told half truth? It said the truth but it didnt say the complete truth to trick them? But does the serpent really knows of the punishment? God confirmed that the serpent was right. But the serpent didnt really deceive them because deceive means to make someone believe something that is not true. But it was true so im not getting it.

In other words, it’s just a story

I wonder if you can reasonably conclude that the "death" of which God speaks in his warning is a reference to separation from the Tree of Life. Are there scholars exploring that possibility?

How do you know Genesis 2 written before Genesis 1?

I like how people try to smooth over the contradictions to make them seem like they were never there and make the stories even more absurd than before. Of course there are multiple stories from different authors being woven together. Even in the English translations of Genesis, we see the start of the Noah's Deluge story at chapter 6 only to see the story start all over again but with new and different details. It is two Deluge stories trying to be woven together as one story by an editor.

The serpent probably knows…they will be punished. A rationalization. Otherwise, as usual, a useful and informative video.

Exactly, in genesis 1 god created human but in genesis 2 god says there is no people , genesis 1 god say let us create human in our image , genesis 2 again says he made human by breathing life into the nostrils