Basic HTML Version
6
scholarship and general acceptance of
advanced thought be, actually, tragic
error?
Cortld
the theories accepted
by the superior minds prove to be, after
all, mere fable? Could the process of
inductive reasoning, considering only
one side of a two-sided question, be so
infallible that we dare not question
their conclusions, or examine the evi–
dences on the other side?
Is it not human to err?
Could it, theo, be possible for the
most highly educated minds to havc
been misled - intellectually deceived?
Do we
DAAE
question the theo–
ries generally accepted by advanced
scholarship?
Would it be academic heresy to look
at the other side of the coin? Do we
DARE
appropriate the
academic freedom
to look at, and carefully examine, that
which has been dismissed
witho111
examination?
It might actually prove enlightening,
at this point, to allow ourselves the lati–
tude of academic freedom to unprcjudi–
cially examine the Biblical narrativc of
the forbidden fruit. That narrative pur–
ports to describe the crucial initial event
in human experience that changed the
entire course of human history. Evi–
dently few, if any, have viewed this
account with any remote conception that
it might explain the
ORJGIN
of the sci–
entific method of
KNOWLEDGE PRODUC·
TION.
And also that it might rc:vcal the
CAUSE
of all the present-day evil
EFFECTS.
Certainly almost no one,
thcologians included,_ has ever under–
stood what this account really does say!
Begin at the Beginning
think we must begin the Bíblica!
narrative of the forbidden fruit at the
bcginning - the first chapter in the first
book of the Bible. Actually, 1 would
like to begin even farther back in time
sequence than the 2nd verse of Genesis
l.
I would like to write an articlc or a
book, covering the beginnings of man's
environment - an "Outline of His–
tory" showing the other side of the coin
than that written by H. G. Wells. I
think it might be iotriguing to compare
the two opposite accounts of origins
and developments to our time. There
are
only
the two possibilities,
so
far as I
know. I would hate to accept one as a
The
PLAIN TRUTH
belief
without any knowledge of the
other.
Personally
1
have to make weighty
decisions occasionally, in the direction
of a worldwide operation.
1
would be
afraid to make such decisions without
having viewed carefully
ALL
of the
facts involved.
But space does not allow that com–
plete "Outline of History" in this
artide. To get quickly to an exam–
ioation of the forbiddcn-fruit narrative
certain high-spot statements from Gen–
esis 1 and 2 are necessary.
I
have noticed that scienti fic and his–
torical writings dealing with origins
and developments are generally profuse
with such expressions as the following:
"We know l ittle about this, but there
are severa!
gueJJes."
Or, "We are
com–
ing to beliel'e."
Or, ' 'We may safely
assmne."
Or, " It
might
well be."
"Probably." "Such and such
may have
ocrHrred."
Or, " lt
fi'Ott!d
ttppear
that
such and such
might have happened."
It
might be interesting to take such a
book, and underscore all sud1 words as
I have jtalicized above - then look
back and read al! your underscored
words. Do it in red pencil. Let them
stand out. It might be fun.
One thing different about the Bib–
lical statements. Whoever wrote them
seemed to be pretty surc of what he was
saying. They are positive statements.
So we begin: "In the beginning,
Goo ..." The statemcnt definitely puts
God before all else. No postulate - no
guess - no "perhaps" - just the
simple statement. "... created the
heaven and the earth."
Something trcmendous is indicated to
have occurred between what is stated to
be the original creation in verse
1,
and
the statement in verse 2. "And the earth
was [became] without form and void
[Heb.
tohtt
and
boh11 -
meaning ruin,
confusion, emptiness - see any Hebrew–
English lexicon) and darkness was
upon the fao: of the deep [fluid surface
- oceans]." Wh,lt occurred between
these two verses is stated in many other
Bíblica} passages in both Old and New
Testaments.
And this, of coursc, allows for any
duration of time between the two verses.
In other words, so far as the Bible nar–
rative is concerned, the original crcation
August-September 1970
could have occurred millions of years
prior to the events described beginning
verse 2 of Genesis
l.
Nevertheless, at the time described by
these first three chapters of the Book of
Genesis, beginning with the 2nd verse
of chapter 1, Bíblica! chronology dates
those events as slightly less than 6,000
years ago.
Coming to the 26th verse, chapter
1,
it is stated, "And God said, Let us make
man in our image, after our Jikeness:
and Jet them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth."
Verse 27: "Aod so God created man
in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female cre–
ated he them."
Coming to chapter
2,
beginning
verse 7: "And the Eterna! God formed
man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul."
It
might be noted that the flat statement
here is that what was made of material
substance, dust of the ground,
BECAME
a living soul - a plain statement that the
"soul" was made from the dust of the
ground - material sobstance, not spirit.
Next comes the statement that God
planted a garden eastward, in Eden,
and there He put the man whom He
bad formed. So the statement is that
Adam was created elsewhere, and then
put into this garden.
The statement follows that there
were beautiful trees in the garden,
including fruit trees. And in the midst
of the garden two special trees: one
called "the tree of
LJFE,"
the other, "the
tree of
KNOWLEDGE
of
GOOD
and
EVJL."
Now verse 16: "And the Eterna!
God commanded the man, saying, Of
every tree of the garden thou mayest
freely eat: but of the tree of the .knowl–
edge of good and evil , thou shalt not
eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die."
There is
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
said
about the forbidden fruit being an
apple.
Although the n:mative here is
exceedingly brief, touching only on
high spots, there is every indication that
what is intended is that God gave