The Bible According to Mark Twain

[Voyageur]

Its been awhile since I've posted on this site. Nice to be back and throw myself into the wonderfully logical debates of Christian Forums.

Anyway... I've been reading alot of Mark Twain (who, incidentally, is my 7th cousin), and he had some interesting perspectives on God, Religion and the Bible.

I recommend everyone read Twain's book Letters from the Earth and the collection of Twain religious writings (fables, satire, etc) called The Bible According to Mark Twain. The man was brilliant and profoundly funny.

One of the quotes from The Bible According to Mark Twain states: "He commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; To disobey could not be a sin, because Adam could not comprehend a sin until the eating the fruit should reveal to him the difference between right and wrong. So he was unfair in punishing Adam for doing wrong when he could not know it was wrong."

What interests me about this passage is that Twain hit on an inconsistency that always plagued my readings of Genesis; namely, that Adam and Eve could not truly know sin if he hadn't the mental faculties to discern good from evil. Moral concepts didn't exist for Adam and Eve. So, it would seem that God's rules were rather illogical and poorly conceived--certainly not in keeping with an all-knowing divinity. Think about that paradox for awhile. I look forward to the Biblical Literalists explanation.

 

[handy]

Admittedly, I'm shooting from the hit here, having just read your post and not really delving into the paradoxes yet. But this is my first gut reaction:

Adam didn't need to know the difference between good and evil and need to understand the ramifications of sin. All Adam had to do was to love and trust God. Adam's love for God was flawed, because he feared and perfect love has no fear. And, Adam failed to trust God.

Christains have pointed this out for years, that the commandment not to eat the fruit wasn't about sin, it was an opportunity for God's creation to follow God out of love, and not just be some kind of mindless, choiceless animatronic.

 

[Voyageur]

To which I would say, Adam couldn't have known what love and trust were: he had no context in which those ideas would mean anything.

From reading Genesis, there's no indication that Adam had the intellectual capacity to even know that he could love and trust God, let alone disobey an order. More importantly, God warns Adam that eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would bring death. But, again, the concept of death would be completely foreign to Adam. Remember: he has no context--he's never seen death nor felt it himself. If the concept of death eludes him, then 'death' as a word is meaningless. And so it goes without saying that God's commandment would also be meaningless.

Christains have pointed this out for years, that the commandment not to eat the fruit wasn't about sin, it was an opportunity for God's creation to follow God out of love, and not just be some kind of mindless, choiceless animatronic.

Wouldn't that be rather superfluous? I mean, if the ultimate goal is to allow humans to love (and have knowledge), wouldn't it make more sense for an omnipotent God to simply grant that intellectual and emotional power straightaway, rather than forbidding knowledge that can be gained through an apple, mind you--an act for which that God then punishes the whole of humanity, even though his creation (Adam & Eve) could not possibly have known the consequences.

In other words, a God wouldn't need a tree to accomplish his ultimate goal for humanity; it could have given humanity the intellectual and emotional power to begin with, much like how humans were given eyes with which to see or tongues to taste.

 

[Voyageur]

And it seems rather disengenous to suggest that all Christians take the view that you stated above. I'm guessing you weren't speaking for all Christians, though.

The reason I say this is because a good number of Christians believe in original sin as it is witnessed in Genesis.

 

[Robert Cragg]

The one quote I remember that Twain said was. " It's not the things in the Bible I don't understand that bothers me, it's the ones I do."

 

[bibleberean]

The one quote I remember that Twain said was. " It's not the things in the Bible I don't understand that bothers me, it's the ones I do."

Amen to that Robert!

 

[bibleberean]

We cannot identify with Adam and understand fully what it was like to be without sin, pain, suffering, death and knowing good from evil. We are fallen Adam's offspring in dying bodies until the resurrection.

Just as man cannot conceive what it will be like after the resurrection so we cannot fully understand what Adam understood or didn't understand.

Adam was told that he was forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He was told the consequences of eating was death.

That does not mean he had ever experienced evil or it's consequences. He was innocent and naked.

We all can identify with what happens to us when we do something we shouldn't have. We experience a feeling of guilt and shame. Adam before the fall never experienced guilt or shame.

The bible records that his eyes were openend and that he was ashamed of his nakedness and hid himself from God.

Man does not know or understand what it will be like when we receive our glorified bodies. We cannot understand what it will be like to live without pain, death or suffering but we can trust God that we will receive these things.

1 Corinthians 2:9-10 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

One day we will live with God and understand. I look forward to that day.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I am going to trust God. How about you guys? :D

 

[handy]

Nope, I wasn't speaking for all Christians, however it is pretty mainstream in Christian thought that God placed the tree in the Garden to allow man the opportunity to serve Him out of love, rather than just be some kind of robot, unable to go against a prime directive.

Secondly, I think you are reading too much into the phrase "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". You seem to think that Adam had no emotional or intellectual capabilities at all. I'm not sure exactly how you are reading that into Genesis, I know I've read and re-read the Genesis story numerous times and never came away with the idea that Adam was an imbecile, just that until he disobeyed, he was innocent of death and evil. Adam was an intelligent being prior to the fall. He was also capable of understanding his own emotional needs. Take for example the naming of the animals. God caused all the animals to come before Adam and Adam had the capacity to both name them, and understand that there was no suitable mate for him. If one understands the Ancient Hebrew culture even a little, one understands that names and the naming of people and things were very important to the Hebrews, naming meant that one was tapping into the very character of that which is being named. This is why we see sometimes in the Old Testament, peoples names being changed after an encounter with God or after a tragedy. By bringing the animals to Adam for the naming, God is showing that He made Adam an intelligent being, capable of understanding the natures of the different beasts.

Listen, I'm not knocking your 7th cousin, one of my favorites amongst American writers. But, I also am not going to be too shook up over Twain's problems with God. Twain had the same opportunity to come to a proper understanding of God that everybody else does. As a satarist, Twain was brilliant, as a theologian, he's not even ranked.

Take for example this excerpt from "Letters From the Earth" when God created the animals:

There were thousands of them. They were full of activities. Busy, all busy -- mainly in persecuting each other. Satan remarked -- after examining one of them through a powerful microscope: "This large beast is killing weaker animals, Divine One."

"The tiger -- yes. The law of his nature is ferocity. The law of his nature is the Law of God. He cannot disobey it."

"Then in obeying it he commits no offense, Divine One?"

"No, he is blameless."

"This other creature, here, is timid, Divine One, and suffers death without resisting."

"The rabbit -- yes. He is without courage. It is the law of his nature -- the Law of God. He must obey it."

"Then he cannot honorably be required to go counter to his nature and resist, Divine One?"

"No. No creature can be honorably required to go counter to the law of his nature -- the Law of God."

After a long time and many questions, Satan said, "The spider kills the fly, and eats it; the bird kills the spider and eats it; the wildcat kills the goose; the -- well, they all kill each other. It is murder all along the line. Here are countless multitudes of creatures, and they all kill, kill, kill, they are all murderers. And they are not to blame, Divine One?"

"They are not to blame. It is the law of their nature.

Now, if Twain was as good a theologian as he was a satarist, he would have known that God did not create the animals to kill one another. Before sin entered the world, there was no death. Yes, just like Twain himself, all living creatures on earth were vegetarians. A very simple reading of Genesis chapter one points out this rather obvious fact.

So, although I hate being critical of one of my favorite authors, he made the mistake of satarizing something he really didn't understand that well, and consequently shows himself as somewhat foolish. Doesn't mean that I don't rank some of his writings as the best in Literature. Just that I'm not going to seek biblical understanding from a man who didn't understand the message of the Bible.

At least, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't understand the message of the Bible. If he did have a better understanding of Biblical things, for instance, if he had read Genesis 1 and fully knew that the Bible teaches that the animals were vegetarians prior to the fall, then I'm afraid he is the disengenous one.

 

[bibleberean]

Good points Handy!

Very well put! :D

 

[Vic C.]

Whether or not Adam understood the consequences is one thing; we shouldn't dwell on that, we should be concentrating on what we get from Genesis. After all, why do we have God's written word if not to reveal His nature, His relationship with His crown of creation and the consequences of disobedience?

On a lighter side, what would have happened if only Eve had eaten the fruit? Would God have banished just her and created a new woman for Adam? 8-)

 

[Voyageur]

Secondly, I think you are reading too much into the phrase "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". You seem to think that Adam had no emotional or intellectual capabilities at all.

I think he would have had rather limited emotional and intellectual capabilities, yes. Not none at all. This is if I assumed the story was true, which I don't. I'm merely analyzing the literalist position and breaking it down. People don't ask these sort of questions about the Bible. It seems to me that what we take for granted in ourselves (a profound ability to reason), wouldn't have existed at that level in a newly created 'creature,' for lack of a better term. He would be as a child in many ways.

I'm not sure exactly how you are reading that into Genesis, I know I've read and re-read the Genesis story numerous times and never came away with the idea that Adam was an imbecile, just that until he disobeyed, he was innocent of death and evil.

I'm not saying he was an imbecile. What I'm saying is that if the consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge was death, Adam (who had never seen death nor felt it), couldn't have known what God meant. So, to me, that renders God's command meaningless. And in reading Genesis, there is really no indication that Adam or Eve knew how to assess emotion and employ reason to the degree which we take for granted.

Adam was an intelligent being prior to the fall. He was also capable of understanding his own emotional needs. Take for example the naming of the animals. God caused all the animals to come before Adam and Adam had the capacity to both name them, and understand that there was no suitable mate for him. If one understands the Ancient Hebrew culture even a little, one understands that names and the naming of people and things were very important to the Hebrews, naming meant that one was tapping into the very character of that which is being named. This is why we see sometimes in the Old Testament, peoples names being changed after an encounter with God or after a tragedy. By bringing the animals to Adam for the naming, God is showing that He made Adam an intelligent being, capable of understanding the natures of the different beasts.

Point taken, although this is the only example of him displaying any intelligence. But, his eating of the apple would suggest he really didn't understand the consequences of his (and Eve's) action.

 

[handy]

People don't ask these sort of questions about the Bible.

Not true. The Bible is one of the most, if not the most, critically examined work of all times. While I have heard of those who have "blind faith", most of the Christians that I've known in the last 3 decades have been the type to critically examine the Bible. Believe me, I've asked a lot harder questions than this myself in Sunday School, and haven't been slapped down for doing so.

Point taken, although this is the only example of him displaying any intelligence. But, his eating of the apple would suggest he really didn't understand the consequences of his (and Eve's) action.

Whether he fully understood the consequences of his action or understood death, isn't the point. He had the capacity to understand God and God's relationship with him. God walked daily with Adam. Adam had the priviledge to be the ONLY human who had total communion with God without any taint of sin. And, knowing God and knowing God's love, he threw it away. I think you are looking at this from the wrong pov.

I don't know if you are a parent or not, but if you are I'm sure that you've been in the situation of needing your child to accept the fact that they don't have full understanding regarding something, and to put their trust in you as their parent, when you're telling they can't do something. While we are speaking of a different level with Adam and God, the prinicple is the same. While I don't expect my children to be more understanding than they are capable of being, I DO expect them to trust and obey me, out of love and respect.

You are starting with the POV that God isn't trustworthy, that God didn't truly love Adam or His own creation enough and that God is cruel and unfair having an expectation of Adam that Adam was totally incapable of living up to.

Actually, you aren't even starting with this. You're starting with the POV that this whole thing is a bunch of baloney and the only reason why anyone would believe such tripe is because they didn't really ask the right questions.

But, those of us who understand God's love because we experience God's love on a daily basis know that God isn't cruel or unfair. By having the Spirit to enable us to understand the inspired Word, we can understand that God's reaction to Adam's actions were justified, because when one reads the whole of Scripture, not just Genesis but the whole shebang, one can see why God did the things He did.

Later in the Scriptures we see that Eve's actions are attributed to be decieved, whereas Adam's actions are out and out sinful. This is simply more proof that Adam knew the consequenses of his actions, even if he had not experienced death.

One more small point, but I think it's one worth making: We cannot know just how long Adam and Eve lived in full fellowship and communion with God prior to the fall. We know that God had the habit of walking daily with Adam, but for how long this took place no one knows. So, to assume that Adam was "newly created", is just that, an assumption.

 

[ginesdemafra]

Magellan quote is bogus

The quote is a fabrication of Robert Green Ingersoll. It is found in his essay "Individuality." This may be accessed at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/individuality.html
It's in the fourth paragraph of his essay:

It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions, -- some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, "The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church." On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success.

This was first pointed out, as far as I know, by Dr. Tom Gorski in his website "Knowing What Ain't So" at http://www.churchoffreethought.org/cgi-bin/contray/contray.cgi?DATA=&ID=000011010&GROUP=048 . Dr. Gorski is one of four founders of the The North Texas Church of Freethought.

There are probably over a hundred sites on the Web with this bogus quote. I hope we all begin to exercise some form of self-correction and cite the real author of those words, Ingersoll.

Vicente Calibo de Jesus ginesdemafra@gmail.com

 

[Rick W]

Magellan never said this. The "Great Agnostic" Robert Ingersoll said it in an address in which he supposed that these ideas might have been or should have been in Magellan’s mind as he set off on his historic voyage.

Another one.

“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in him a terrible resolve!â€Â

The admiral never said that.

 

[TyCowboy]

To the original question on the tree in the Garden of Eden, this has been my take on it for quite some time...God created man with free will. There was one rule in the Garden of Eden, not to eat of the fruit of that tree. Why? Well, if there was not an option to sin, would man have had free will to choose to do so? No. The issue with the tree was that God had to give Adam and Eve the option to disobey Him, otherwise, he had created robots, not humans with free will to choose relationship with Him over disobeying Him.

When children are young, they have so little to worry about. They play outside, they catch fireflies, they sing songs that "Yes, Jesus loves me." As they get older, they learn more of the world, and begin to worry/concern themselves with so much. The situation in the garden and with the giving of the law after the fall is much the same. In the garden, there was no knowledge of sin, except what God has explicitly said not to do. Adam and Eve were kids in one sense...they didn't have to worry about things of which they had no knowledge. Conversely, after the fall of man, they learned of right and wrong, good and evil, and they had so much more to have to deal with or concern themselves with.

As a side note, notice that before the fall, there was one rule. Afterwards, there were many more. It is interesting when Paul says that the Law came so that sin would increase, but where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. So we went from one rule...don't eat the fruit, to many rules, and then Jesus came as the new Adam, and we arrive at one rule again Jesus saying...abide in me...ask Me into your life, to wash away all the sin, to take away the shackles placed on you by the judgment of the law.

Ty.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: Magellan quote is bogus

The quote is a fabrication of Robert Green Ingersoll. It is found in his essay "Individuality." This may be accessed at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/individuality.html
It's in the fourth paragraph of his essay:

It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions, -- some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, "The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church." On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success.

This was first pointed out, as far as I know, by Dr. Tom Gorski in his website "Knowing What Ain't So" at http://www.churchoffreethought.org/cgi-bin/contray/contray.cgi?DATA=&ID=000011010&GROUP=048 . Dr. Gorski is one of four founders of the The North Texas Church of Freethought.

There are probably over a hundred sites on the Web with this bogus quote. I hope we all begin to exercise some form of self-correction and cite the real author of those words, Ingersoll.

Vicente Calibo de Jesus ginesdemafra@gmail.com

OK, buddy. Totally off-subject, but I'll let you enjoy that tiny little pleasure.

Whose words they are is immaterial... The real point here is that if our ancestors had listened to the Church when it came to matters of science--if they had remained silent and let the progress of science become forever stunted, we'd still believe the Earth was stationary and was the center of the universe.

So, my friend... know that this reality trumps that small, insignificant little victory you're claiming over a misquote.

If it was indeed Ingersoll, what difference does it make? Its the spirit of the quote I'm interested in...

Nevertheless, I feel a sudden urge to change my quote. Yes. Yes, I do. And thank you... because I will celebrate this urge by honoring you with an Ingersoll quote, which I hope you do enjoy:

"Churches are becoming political organizations....It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave."

 

[Voyageur]

When children are young, they have so little to worry about. They play outside, they catch fireflies, they sing songs that "Yes, Jesus loves me." As they get older, they learn more of the world, and begin to worry/concern themselves with so much. The situation in the garden and with the giving of the law after the fall is much the same. In the garden, there was no knowledge of sin, except what God has explicitly said not to do. Adam and Eve were kids in one sense...they didn't have to worry about things of which they had no knowledge. Conversely, after the fall of man, they learned of right and wrong, good and evil, and they had so much more to have to deal with or concern themselves with.

I agree and disagree. Yes, young children have very little to worry about.

However, children are smart. If left free to reason about the writings in the Bible, they'll notice inconsistencies and contradictions as they grow older. When I was a child (probably between 7 and 9), I started recognizing the contradictions.

So, to suggest that the pre-fall mind is comparable to a post-fall child's mind seems wrong, as they cannot be compared. Children don't live in some static state wherein ideas of morality and the cultivation of intellect are meaningless, as Adam and Eve lived (before they got the boot).