In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[William]

Potential agreement List;

1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.

Agreed?

What is noticeable about the style of The Garden Story is that it is presented in a bullet-point manner.
As such, if it were told verbatim around a campfire, it would be over in a matter of minutes, and leave the listener with more questions than it gives answers to.
That is what we have to work with.

It's a narrative. A quick narrative that doesn't answer every question, sure, but I don't think "bullet-point" is accurate.

Why be contrary?

What advantage to your own position does it make to think of the story as a "quick narrative that doesn't answer every question" than to see it in the style of bullet points?

[The Tanager]

Is there any reason why you are unable to address the other points being made Tanager?

I respond to the points I think are pertinent. I’ve always told you that if I miss something that you think is important, then just ask it again, probably in a different phrasing, in case I misunderstood it. Here is what I didn’t directly respond to and why:

1. I gave my understanding of what you were claiming and asked for verses to back that as being a part of the storyline. You agreed that I understood your claim and then said there weren’t any verses that point to this.

I don’t understand this approach of yours, that when the story doesn’t directly, verbally contradict the interpretation you’ve come up with, that this means your interpretation is in line with the storyline. I don’t agree with that. We’ve touched upon that multiple times in our conversations, and, so, I felt like we’ve already gone down that road. This isn't "following the storyline" to me, but it is to you. We disagree, but I've nothing new to add on that front.

2. You then talked about Adam understanding language and that YHVH spoke to him.

My response worked off of agreeing with this point, even though I didn’t directly say it.

3. You then talked about Adam being lonely.

I didn’t see how this was pertinent and wanted to focus on what I saw as pertinent.

4. You then talked about Adam being able to learn and how this would be impossible without the breath of YHVH.

My response worked off of agreeing with this point, even though I didn’t directly say it.

How does that logically follow? Why did you write 'he' would have just been a lump of dirt after writing "he wouldn't be a 'he' but an 'it';"

I was making a contrast of you writing ‘he’ with three points. Put ‘x’ in for ‘he’ and it would be like saying “it’s not an X because…one,” “it’s not an X because…two,” “it’s not an X because…three”.

You said as much yourself. A piece of dirt is all that the body set is, until the interface brings it online.

Why is it an ‘interface’ (that is itself conscious) rather than just electricity bringing it online?

Potential agreement List;

1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.

Agreed.

Why be contrary?

What advantage to your own position does it make to think of the story as a "quick narrative that doesn't answer every question" than to see it in the style of bullet points?

Bullet-point manner, to me, is a list of several items that could be connected or disconnected from the ones before it and after it. I don’t think that is how the garden story is organized; it is a narrative that flows.

The advantage? It aligns more with truth as I see it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #182]

3. You then talked about Adam being lonely.

I didn’t see how this was pertinent and wanted to focus on what I saw as pertinent.

Since it is in the storyline - the authors mention of it should be at least regarded as pertinent.

4. You then talked about Adam being able to learn and how this would be impossible without the breath of YHVH.

My response worked off of agreeing with this point, even though I didn’t directly say it.

If we are interacting in order to better understand one another, would you consider from now on, making such things plain rather than leaving it up to me to assume we have agreement?

You said as much yourself. A piece of dirt is all that the body set is, until the interface brings it online.

Why is it an ‘interface’ (that is itself conscious) rather than just electricity bringing it online?

Because consciousness is what YHVH has. If you think it was electricity, you will have to explain your reasoning there and how electricity better aligns with the analogy of breath.

1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.

Agreed.

Hopefully we can add more to this list.

3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.

Agreed?

13: YVHV uses what YVHV will to get the message across...

_______________________________
RE the somewhat lacking in detail narrative of The Garden Story;

Q: Why do you think that the mention of Adam being lonely, is not pertinent to the story?

Is it because it's mention somehow doesn't align more with truth as you see it? Some other reason?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #182]

I respond to the points I think are pertinent. I’ve always told you that if I miss something that you think is important, then just ask it again, probably in a different phrasing, in case I misunderstood it.

If The Garden Story were told verbatim around a campfire, it would be over in a matter of minutes, and leave the listener with more questions than it gives answers to.
That is what we have to work with.

Agreed?
[If not, please explain why not.]

Adam formed his intellectual abilities and mindful concepts before expressing these into the outside environment of The Garden.

Agreed?
[If not, please explain why not.]

Something within the field of the human personality acts as an interface which enables the personality the ability to become aware of YHVH and potentially connect with YHVH.

Agreed?
[If not, please explain why not.]

The other animals were created to alleviate Adam's loneliness and provide Adam with something to do, re his intellectual capabilities.

Agreed?
[If not, please explain why not.]

Among the animals that YHVH created and brought to Adam to be named, would have been the creature Adam named "The Serpent".

Agreed?
[If not, please explain why not.]

A reminder;

Clearly the story tells us

As the story indicates, even with the other animals created to alleviate Adam's loneliness.

Even the Serpent - another sentient being YHVH made from the dust and placed in The Garden, and one which understood language and Adam could converse with - was not able to fill this void which was obviously still missing in Adam's world.

Herein, we can pause and examine the man Adam, and understand that with the greatest teacher-voice in the universe gifting Adam with the ability to understand and use language and have basic critical thinking skills, Adam got lonely.

YHVH creates tasks for Adam with the idea that the tasks should occupy Adams intellect sufficiently for the loneliness to subside.

Adam didn't even need to search the Garden and find the animals, in order to name them.

The advantage? It aligns more with truth as I see it.

18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.

[The Tanager]

If we are interacting in order to better understand one another, would you consider from now on, making such things plain rather than leaving it up to me to assume we have agreement?

Yes, I will try to make it more clear in the future.

Because consciousness is what YHVH has. If you think it was electricity, you will have to explain your reasoning there and how electricity better aligns with the analogy of breath.

‘Electricity’ was an analogical term. It’s logically possible that a conscious YHVH made it so Adam could be conscious, without the ‘mechanism’ for doing so being a third conscious thing. Why is the ‘mechanism’ a conscious entity rather than just a way to refer to Adam becoming a conscious being?

3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.

I agree.

Why do you think that the mention of Adam being lonely, is not pertinent to the story?

Is it because it's mention somehow doesn't align more with truth as you see it? Some other reason?

I think it is pertinent to the story. I didn’t think it was pertinent to our disagreement about what the story teaches.

If The Garden Story were told verbatim around a campfire, it would be over in a matter of minutes, and leave the listener with more questions than it gives answers to.
That is what we have to work with.

I'm not sure it leaves one with more questions than it gives answers to, but it certainly could bring up questions for the reader. Almost all writings do that because we are curious people and authors are trying to answer specific questions, not all questions.

Adam formed his intellectual abilities and mindful concepts before expressing these into the outside environment of The Garden.

Adam was given his intellectual abilities at his beginning. I’m not sure what a mindful concept is versus just a concept, but I do think anyone must form a concept before expressing it to others.

Something within the field of the human personality acts as an interface which enables the personality the ability to become aware of YHVH and potentially connect with YHVH.

I agree. I think our bodily senses coupled with our mind/soul is what enables our awareness of and connection to YHVH.

The other animals were created to alleviate Adam's loneliness and provide Adam with something to do, re his intellectual capabilities.

I don’t think the other animals were created to alleviate Adam’s loneliness. I don’t think Gen 2:18-20 is chronological. It’s not that YHVH sees Adam is alone, then makes the animals and brings them to him. I think we are introduced to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, then given a comment about how there were animals (that, yes, Adam was to use his intellectual, physical, and emotional abilities to care for), but Adam was not a beast like them and, therefore, had no partner/helper fit for him, leading up to the creation of the woman.

Among the animals that YHVH created and brought to Adam to be named, would have been the creature Adam named "The Serpent".

Probably so.

The advantage? It aligns more with truth as I see it.

Main agreement List: wrote:
18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.

You misunderstood me above. I didn’t mean because I already believed otherwise, but that I still think it is the most rational position to take. I’m not sure if your argument hinges on it being a bullet-point versus a short narrative, but if it does, then why do you see it as a bullet-point account?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #185]

Because consciousness is what YHVH has. If you think it was electricity, you will have to explain your reasoning there and how electricity better aligns with the analogy of breath.

‘Electricity’ was an analogical term. It’s logically possible that a conscious YHVH made it so Adam could be conscious, without the ‘mechanism’ for doing so being a third conscious thing. Why is the ‘mechanism’ a conscious entity rather than just a way to refer to Adam becoming a conscious being?

So we have two equally valid reasonings.
I think we would have to examine the other life forms YHVH created from the substance of the earth. Does The Garden Story tell us how YHVH placed life within those animals?

Why do you think that the mention of Adam being lonely, is not pertinent to the story?

Is it because it's mention somehow doesn't align more with truth as you see it? Some other reason?

I think it is pertinent to the story. I didn’t think it was pertinent to our disagreement about what the story teaches.

Then are you wiling to agree with my assessment of the story so far, in that Adam's loneliness was mentioned by the author, being inspired by YHVH to write the story in that manner, and that the mentioning of it is therefore, relevant and requires we understand how YHVH was responding to Adam and Adam to YHVH that we might therein find clues which can help us answer the question as to whether Adam understood YHVH or not, regarding the idea of death?

If The Garden Story were told verbatim around a campfire, it would be over in a matter of minutes, and leave the listener with more questions than it gives answers to.
That is what we have to work with.

I'm not sure it leaves one with more questions than it gives answers to, but it certainly could bring up questions for the reader.

That is essentially the same thing said differently.

Agreed?

Almost all writings do that because we are curious people and authors are trying to answer specific questions, not all questions.

Do you think that The Garden Story was written for the purpose of answering questions?

If so, which questions do you think it answers?

Adam formed his intellectual abilities and mindful concepts before expressing these into the outside environment of The Garden.

Adam was given his intellectual abilities at his beginning.

How was this achieved without some form of working conscious interface with YHVH that was not simply Adams brain?

I’m not sure what a mindful concept is versus just a concept, but I do think anyone must form a concept before expressing it to others.

They are similar in that both require a mind. A mindful concept is having knowledge AND understanding what that concept means.

In order for Adam to know what death was, he would have to have witnessed death happening already, in The Garden.
Since the story is short on such details, how are we to decide if Adam witnessed any such thing as death?
All Adam had was some vague concept at best. Something which was enough for him to avoid eating the forbidden fruit without the addition of having to be tempted by someone [The Serpent] outside of his self to go against an instruction from someone [YHVH] - apparently - also outside of his self. [as an external voice in The Garden]

Something within the field of the human personality acts as an interface which enables the personality the ability to become aware of YHVH and potentially connect with YHVH.

I agree. I think our bodily senses coupled with our mind/soul is what enables our awareness of and connection to YHVH.

We have identified those senses of the body set. We have yet to identify what "mind/soul" is in relation to the body set.

You think of the 'soul' as something which is emergent from the functioning of the body set and I think of it as The Breath of YHVH.

The other animals were created to alleviate Adam's loneliness and provide Adam with something to do, re his intellectual capabilities.

I don’t think the other animals were created to alleviate Adam’s loneliness.

The storyline puts it that way.

Why do you think that YHVH created other animals then?

This gets back to an earlier comment I made re the unusual void Adam was experiencing, to which the presence of YHVH alone could not fill...more pertinence.

What are we to make of that?

If YHVH created Adam, and it wasn't specifically so that YHVH could grow a personality which would follow YHVH's instructions only, then we would have to explore other possible reasons for why YHVH grew Adam.

Agreed?

I don’t think Gen 2:18-20 is chronological.

In your last post you wrote;

Bullet-point manner, to me, is a list of several items that could be connected or disconnected from the ones before it and after it. I don’t think that is how the garden story is organized; it is a narrative that flows.

Which is it Tanager. The storyline must be followed chronologically or the storyline has items that could be connected or disconnected from the ones before it and after other items?

It’s not that YHVH sees Adam is alone, then makes the animals and brings them to him. I think we are introduced to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, then given a comment about how there were animals (that, yes, Adam was to use his intellectual, physical, and emotional abilities to care for), but Adam was not a beast like them and, therefore, had no partner/helper fit for him, leading up to the creation of the woman.

So are you suggesting that the way the story actually went, was that YHVH created the Woman first?

If not, then shall we agree to follow the storyline chronologically?

Among the animals that YHVH created and brought to Adam to be named, would have been the creature Adam named "The Serpent".

Probably so.

Are you not sure about that?

The advantage? It aligns more with truth as I see it.

Main agreement List:
18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.

You misunderstood me above. I didn’t mean because I already believed otherwise, but that I still think it is the most rational position to take. I’m not sure if your argument hinges on it being a bullet-point versus a short narrative, but if it does, then why do you see it as a bullet-point account?

I am happy to go along with your thinking on the difference between bullet points and short story narrative flow here Tanager.

My reference to bullet points was in how I find the succinctness of the storyline statements, similar to how bullet points are made.


The Garden Story Agreement List;
1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.
3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.

[The Tanager]

So we have two equally valid reasonings.

Both are logically possible, yes. I wouldn’t say they are equal. All else being equal, that there is a third conscious thing that explains the second conscious thing being conscious is the more complex answer and, therefore, the less rational.

I think we would have to examine the other life forms YHVH created from the substance of the earth. Does The Garden Story tell us how YHVH placed life within those animals?

They have the breath of life, just as Adam does (1:30, 6:17, etc.), but it’s not focused on like we have with YHVH breathing the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils.

Then are you wiling to agree with my assessment of the story so far, in that Adam's loneliness was mentioned by the author, being inspired by YHVH to write the story in that manner, and that the mentioning of it is therefore, relevant and requires we understand how YHVH was responding to Adam and Adam to YHVH that we might therein find clues which can help us answer the question as to whether Adam understood YHVH or not, regarding the idea of death?

The loneliness is mentioned and important, yes, but I’m not sure it addresses, one way or the other, of whether Adam understood YHVH or not.

That is essentially the same thing said differently.

No, leaving more questions than it answers is the opposite of not leaving more questions than it answers and, therefore, not the same thing said differently but I’m not sure this difference matters for our conversation, if that is what you mean.

Do you think that The Garden Story was written for the purpose of answering questions?

If so, which questions do you think it answers?

All stories are written with certain questions in mind. We are exploring what those questions are.

How was this achieved without some form of working conscious interface with YHVH that was not simply Adams brain?

Why would it need to be a working conscious interface? Humans give computers certain abilities without using a working conscious interface. Adam’s intellectual abilities come through having a brain and a mind/soul.

In order for Adam to know what death was, he would have to have witnessed death happening already, in The Garden.

Why would he need to witness it already?

Since the story is short on such details, how are we to decide if Adam witnessed any such thing as death?
All Adam had was some vague concept at best. Something which was enough for him to avoid eating the forbidden fruit without the addition of having to be tempted by someone [The Serpent] outside of his self to go against an instruction from someone [YHVH] - apparently - also outside of his self. [as an external voice in The Garden]

So, you think Adam understood death enough to avoid it? Weren’t you saying Adam didn’t understand that? New information that comes in to tempt one to mistrust one’s understanding shows that they had the understanding needed.

You think of the 'soul' as something which is emergent from the functioning of the body set and I think of it as The Breath of YHVH.

I don’t think the soul is an emergent property. I think the breath of life that YHVH breathes into Adam is describing the coming to be of the embodied soul that is Adam.

Which is it Tanager. The storyline must be followed chronologically or the storyline has items that could be connected or disconnected from the ones before it and after other items?

Those are not mutually exclusive. The points are still connected to each other, just not written in a chronological sequence.

So are you suggesting that the way the story actually went, was that YHVH created the Woman first?

If not, then shall we agree to follow the storyline chronologically?

No, not at all. I’m suggesting it reads like a quick flashback of sorts. Adam was lonely (let’s call that at t=5. Now, YHVH made the animals (flashing back to, say, t = 3) but they hadn’t fulfilled Adam’s loneliness. So, back at t=5, YHVH makes Adam a human partner that is like him in ways the animals are not.

Are you not sure about that?

It’s just another way to say “I agree”.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #187]

So we have two equally valid reasonings.

Both are logically possible, yes. I wouldn’t say they are equal. All else being equal, that there is a third conscious thing that explains the second conscious thing being conscious is the more complex answer and, therefore, the less rational.

Only from a purely materialistic viewpoint. Just as Nicodemus didn't see rationality in Jesus' reference to a personality being "born again" and Jesus having to explain how materialism is materialistic, and Spirit is YHVH.

Consciousness is still a complex problem which has not been explained - even that materialism has attempted to do so without the extra complexity of "Spirit" - but that is not what I was meaning by writing "two equally valid reasonings".
Rather I was lending an ear to your materialistic stance and - for the sake of the argument - deeming it as "equally valid" even though I have my doubts that it really is equally as valid, at all.

I think we would have to examine the other life forms YHVH created from the substance of the earth. Does The Garden Story tell us how YHVH placed life within those animals?

They have the breath of life, just as Adam does... (1:30, 6:17, etc.),

[1:30]
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
[6:17]

“And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.”

The flesh is destroyed, not the Breath of Life.

...but it’s not focused on like we have with YHVH breathing the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils.

Our focus is on human personalities specifically. Other animals also have personalities - so I would not exempt these as also grown by YHVH for purpose.
The purpose of Adam re YHVH is the discussion focus.

Then are you wiling to agree with my assessment of the story so far, in that Adam's loneliness was mentioned by the author, being inspired by YHVH to write the story in that manner, and that the mentioning of it is therefore, relevant and requires we understand how YHVH was responding to Adam and Adam to YHVH that we might therein find clues which can help us answer the question as to whether Adam understood YHVH or not, regarding the idea of death?

The loneliness is mentioned and important, yes, but I’m not sure it addresses, one way or the other, of whether Adam understood YHVH or not.

Why would Adam experience being lonely when the creator of his world is in communion with Adam?

Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?

How was this achieved without some form of working conscious interface with YHVH that was not simply Adams brain?

Why would it need to be a working conscious interface? Humans give computers certain abilities without using a working conscious interface.

However, - and correct me if I am wrong - you have argued in the past that Adam had "free will" because YHVH did not want a robot just doing whatever YHVH commanded [ as with us and our computers] so how is this to be achieved by YHVH with Adam having some kind of conscious interface - not only to hear the knowledge YHVH imparted, but to at least respond with some kind of understanding - such as when YHVH brought the animals of The Garden before Adam - Adam must have somehow grasped that YHVH wanted Adam to name those animals.
A computer wouldn't understand such things, unless it was programmed with algorithms which allowed it to respond the way the human wanted it to.

Adam’s intellectual abilities come through having a brain and a mind/soul.

It is the mind/soul which I am suggesting is what The Breath of YHVH represents. The conscious intelligent interface which enabled the connect to occur and for Adam to hear The Voice In The Garden and to be taught by that Voice.

In order for Adam to know what death was, he would have to have witnessed death happening already, in The Garden.

Why would he need to witness it already?

How else would he understand what "death" was, without knowing about what death does?

Since the story is short on such details, how are we to decide if Adam witnessed any such thing as death?
All Adam had was some vague concept at best. Something which was enough for him to avoid eating the forbidden fruit without the addition of having to be tempted by someone [The Serpent] outside of his self to go against an instruction from someone [YHVH] - apparently - also outside of his self. [as an external voice in The Garden]

So, you think Adam understood death enough to avoid it?

No. He understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH enough for that not to be a problem for him. Also - he had access to every other food source in The Garden, so with those two things in mind, it is easy enough for us to accept that these were sufficient for Adam to avoid eating the forbidden fruit.

Weren’t you saying Adam didn’t understand that?

Correct. The story doesn't directly tell us that Adam had any desire to try the forbidden fruit. Fear of death would not have been a contributing factor if Adam had no conceptual understanding of what death was, and it is not as if Adam was starving, since he had access to all the other food sources in The Garden.

New information that comes in to tempt one to mistrust one’s understanding shows that they had the understanding needed.

What 'new information" are you referring to Tanager? That Adam would not 'surely die'? How would that help Adam understand death any better than he understood it prior to the Serpents telling of it?
[If you can show the reader clearly where Adam did indeed have a grasp on what death was, that would be helpful.]
In the meantime, it certainly appears in The Garden Story that Adam's understanding about what death was, was very limited...in that he only really knew that it meant "something", but what it meant he did not understand at the time it was told to him, as well as at the time of the Serpent's temptation.

You think of the 'soul' as something which is emergent from the functioning of the body set and I think of it as The Breath of YHVH.

I don’t think the soul is an emergent property. I think the breath of life that YHVH breathes into Adam is describing the coming to be of the embodied soul that is Adam.

Does that mean you think that the soul = The Breath of YHVH?
If not, then what do you think the soul is?

Which is it Tanager. The storyline must be followed chronologically or the storyline has items that could be connected or disconnected from the ones before it and after other items?

Those are not mutually exclusive. The points are still connected to each other, just not written in a chronological sequence.

Since we only have the story told in one manner - and it appears to be chronological - please give your reasons as to why you believe this to be the case, alongside what you think should be the chronological order the story wasn't written in - according to you - so that the reader might better understand your argument here, and why you are adding this argument to the discussion.

So are you suggesting that the way the story actually went, was that YHVH created the Woman first?

If not, then shall we agree to follow the storyline chronologically?

No, not at all. I’m suggesting it reads like a quick flashback of sorts. Adam was lonely (let’s call that at t=5. Now, YHVH made the animals (flashing back to, say, t = 3) but they hadn’t fulfilled Adam’s loneliness. So, back at t=5, YHVH makes Adam a human partner that is like him in ways the animals are not.

Why complicate things to that degree?

Is the story implying that Adams loneliness was for a sexual partner? Some animal most like him?
How is it that YHVH wouldn't know what Adam was lonely for?

These questions are for the purpose of us attempting to find out why the presence of YHVH was insufficient for Adam, as Adam suffered from loneliness anyway.

The story shows us how YHVH responds to the fact that YHVH is not sufficient for Adam and that YHVH does not act jealously about that, but actually attempts to help Adams affliction by providing animals to be companions to Adam - even adding the Serpent into the mix - an animal which had similar qualities of sentience and could even converse with Adam.

Yet, even with all of that provision, Adam is still lonely.

We need to find out why this process happened and we should be able to do so, without resorting to 'fixing' the way the author was inspired by YHVH [3:] to write the story in the sequence that it was written.

Agreed?

The Garden Story Agreement List;
1: Adam understood language.
2: Without The Breath of YHVH, Adam would not exist as an individual growing personality.
3: The Garden Story is inspired by YHVH.
4: The Serpent was one of the animals that Adam named

[The Tanager]

Do you think I’m saying that Adam was matter without a mind/soul? When YHVH breathes life into Adam, I think that is talking about Adam having a soul. I thought you were saying we have YHVH (who is conscious or has a mind or soul), Adam (who is conscious or has a mind or soul), and the Breath of YHVH (who is a third thing that is conscious and has a mind or soul that is, in some way, distinct from YHVH and Adam).

Why would Adam experience being lonely when the creator of his world is in communion with Adam?

Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?

Because YHVH wanted people to be in a loving community with each other. They were to multiply and fill the earth. At this point in the story, that hadn’t happened yet. This isn’t a knock against what Adam and YHVH had.

How else would he understand what "death" was, without knowing about what death does?

I know certain things about New York without having ever experienced them.

No. He understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH enough for that not to be a problem for him. Also - he had access to every other food source in The Garden, so with those two things in mind, it is easy enough for us to accept that these were sufficient for Adam to avoid eating the forbidden fruit.

Why do you think Adam understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH? Why do you think Adam understood he had access to every other food source in the garden?

Since we only have the story told in one manner - and it appears to be chronological - please give your reasons as to why you believe this to be the case, alongside what you think should be the chronological order the story wasn't written in - according to you - so that the reader might better understand your argument here, and why you are adding this argument to the discussion.

Saying it “appears to be chronological” is just re-stating your interpretation; it’s not an argument for it. And that it’s chronological is not the default position.

Genesis 1 places the creation of animals prior to Adam’s creation. The emphasis of this small part is on Adam’s loneliness. Yes, Adam was given the animals to name and care for, but they aren’t what Adam is; they can’t fulfill that loneliness. Adam was made to be in community with other humans, to multiply and fill the earth, not just to reign over it.

Why complicate things to that degree?

Is the story implying that Adams loneliness was for a sexual partner? Some animal most like him?
How is it that YHVH wouldn't know what Adam was lonely for?

That isn’t complicating things at all. The loneliness isn’t just about a sexual partner, but community with other humans. Sex and procreation is definitely part of it, though.

In no way would this be teaching that YHVH doesn’t know what Adam was lonely for. It separates humans from the other beasts. When they sin, what do they do? They start thinking like a beast (listening to a beast). They make a decision based on their desires (3:6) whether than trusting YHVH. This is repeated over and over throughout Genesis (Abel, Lot, etc.). But we aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that they don’t.

We need to find out why this process happened and we should be able to do so, without resorting to 'fixing' the way the author was inspired by YHVH [3:] to write the story in the sequence that it was written.

Yes, we should. The question is whose interpretation is going against the storyline. Your interpretation contradicts what the author included in Genesis 1 about the order of creating the animals before humans, so at least yours is wrong.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #189]

Do you think I’m saying that Adam was matter without a mind/soul?

No.

When YHVH breathes life into Adam, I think that is talking about Adam having a soul.

Do you think I have been saying otherwise?

I thought you were saying we have YHVH (who is conscious or has a mind or soul), Adam (who is conscious or has a mind or soul), and the Breath of YHVH (who is a third thing that is conscious and has a mind or soul that is, in some way, distinct from YHVH and Adam).

No. I wasn't saying that. What I am still saying is that the Breath of YHVH is the interface between Adam in the body set and YHVH in the Spirit.
Remember, Adam is not the body set, but the growing personality within the body set and the personality cannot grow at all/become a personality, without the Breath of YHVH.

The loneliness is mentioned and important, yes, but I’m not sure it addresses, one way or the other, of whether Adam understood YHVH or not.

Why would Adam experience being lonely when the creator of his world is in communion with Adam?

Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?

Because YHVH wanted people to be in a loving community with each other. They were to multiply and fill the earth. At this point in the story, that hadn’t happened yet. This isn’t a knock against what Adam and YHVH had.

What people were there up to that point? There were none, unless we also count the Serpent as a 'people' since the Serpent was as sentient as Adam...but for whatever reason, was not suitable for the purpose of breeding.

Should we accept that YHVH had plans for Adam from The Beginning, which involved a woman being created directly from Adam's DNA [Gen 2:22] and it was always YHVH's intention/agenda to have the pair breed and leave The Garden and go into the world and multiply through their offspring and eventually subdue the whole planet?

Even so, we cannot say therein that Adam understood what his role was in YHVH's plans. Adam does not even appear to know what the emotion he is experiencing, is triggered by.

Obviously, Adam did not even understand that much, so why should we expect that he understood YHVH about what death was?

How else would he understand what "death" was, without knowing about what death does?

I know certain things about New York without having ever experienced them.

So do I, but this is because we have information about NY.

You and I however, know nothing about anything which we have no knowledge of. YHVH could tell us about "Zingklecorberts" and warn us not to engage with those because we will get Zingklecobbles, and we would understand - perhaps by the tone YHVH uses - that we want to avoid catching Zingklecobbles - but we still would have no idea what they were, only that we probably wouldn't like them.

We can know of something without understanding the knowledge. Especially if the knowledge is vague/sketchy/frugal on the details.

Why do you think Adam understood his relationship with the Voice of YHVH?

The storyline definitely infers as much, is why.

YHVH had interaction with Adam and taught Adam language.

Agreed?

Why do you think Adam understood he had access to every other food source in the garden?

Why are you asking such questions Tanager? See: Gen 2:16

Genesis 1 places the creation of animals prior to Adam’s creation.

Correct.

The emphasis of this small part is on Adam’s loneliness. Yes, Adam was given the animals to name and care for, but they aren’t what Adam is; they can’t fulfill that loneliness.

Yet the author is inspired by YHVH to write that YHVH didn't think Adam's loneliness was a good thing and brought those pre-created animals to Adam, to occupy Adams intellect as well as to help relieve Adams sense of being alone.

Obviously we should therefore be able to agree that YHVH created Adams body set in such a way that the newly forming personality would respond predictably and YHVH would provide that which Adam had missing in his experience, even though Adam would not have had any understanding of why he felt as he did - but only knowledge [intuition] that he felt as he did.

Adam was made to be in community with other humans, to multiply and fill the earth, not just to reign over it.

We agree.

Do we also agree that it was only YHVH who knew and understood this at the time, and Adam did not?

In no way would this be teaching that YHVH doesn’t know what Adam was lonely for.

I agree. But the question is not what YHVH knows and understands, but rather - about how much Adam knew at the time, and of that knowledge, how much of it did he actually understand.

It separates humans from the other beasts. When they sin, what do they do? They start thinking like a beast (listening to a beast).

Steady on there Tanager.

What separates humans from other beasts?
What sins do other beasts commit?

What do you mean by "thinking like a beast"? and "listening to a beast"?

They make a decision based on their desires (3:6) rather than trusting YHVH.

Adams body set was designed by YHVH, even before YHVH gave it breath and then placed it within The Garden...so any desires coming from that must have been to be able to do so. though how the body set was designed
This does not mean that YHVH is at fault for Adam not understanding what death was, or for taking the contrary advice from the Serpent.

What it does mean is that YHVH would still be able use Adam for YHVH's agenda, even if Adam did eat of the forbidden fruit, because the task of having this Family Unit go into the world and breed and subdue it, would still be able to be made to happen.

Agreed?

But we aren’t the beasts, we have rationality that they don’t.

If that were the case, Adam wouldn't have succumb to the temptation to listen to any other rather than YHVH...unless Adam did not have a full understanding [rationality] as to what death was...and clearly YHVH did not give Adam any more than inexplicit instruction of what not to do and what consequence would happen if Adam did do what he was told not to do.
As such, Adam's rationality was not based in complete knowledge and thus Adam rationally could not have had complete understanding.

From our Main Agreement List;

[4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.]

Rather - YHVH expected Adam to do as he was told, even without Adam understanding why he should do as YHVH instructed or understanding what death meant, or how this death would come about/be made to happen.

From our Main Agreement List;

[9: YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not]

We need to find out why this process happened and we should be able to do so, without resorting to 'fixing' the way the author was inspired by YHVH [3:] to write the story in the sequence that it was written.

Yes, we should. The question is whose interpretation is going against the storyline. Your interpretation contradicts what the author included in Genesis 1 about the order of creating the animals before humans, so at least yours is wrong.

Not at all. Just as Adam was created outside of The Garden, and placed in it, the other animals were also created outside The Garden and placed within it.

We can deduce from this, that The Garden was created after the both the Animals and Adam were created.

And the LORD YHVH formed Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Adam became a living soul.

And the LORD YHVH planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

We can also deduce that The Garden occupied a very small area somewhere on the planet, but did not occupy the whole planet.

Also -we can deduce that - in line with agreement #18 from our Main Agreement List;

[18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.]

That there were other humans in existence on the planet - in most habitual areas - before Adam was created and placed within The Garden setting, as the science verifies that we are all related and our common [DNA] relationship can be traced back to a female who has been named "Lucy" [and sometimes "Grandmother Lucy"] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
and therefore, YHVH must have borrowed from Lucy's DNA some of the coding which went into YHVH's creation of Adam.

Agreed?