Look through your notes from the recent round of Oral Papers. Engage with ONE of the oral papers in one of the following ways:
1. Present a disagreeing rebuttal to the thesis, providing at least TWO items of textual evidence that support your rebuttal.
2. Present a supportive response to the these, providing at least TWO additional items of textual evidence that bolster your support.
Please note: disagreeing with someone's thesis does not mean you thought their oral paper was weak or insufficient. It simply means you see things another way. So don't be afraid or worried about presenting an opposing view. In truth, a good thesis is one that a rational person can reasonably disagree with. So you needn't fret about hurting anyone's feelings.
If you take an opposing view, do it with respect and clarity.
If you take a bolstering view, do it without being overly "bravo awesome."
Simply state your case - whether you disagree or agree and why (based on strong textual evidence).
Ready: go. DUE by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, October 4th.
After listening and understanding Taylor Lambert's argument, I agree with her. Both Adam and Eve are responsible for sin entering the world. There are several points that can prove this statement.
ReplyDeleteAs husband and wife, you become a unit. You operate as one. They share their rights and wrongs. During this time period, men were viewed superior in relationships. Hence "gender roles". Men were viewed more of the provider and decision makers. Women on the other hand were the nurturer.
My first example that proves that Adam and Eve are equally responsible is found in Genesis chapter 3, "He will rule over you". Although God told Eve she shouldn't eat from the tree but the serpent convinced her. Her husband, Adam, should've been there to reinforce God's word.
Another example is, God constantly referring to the male and "his mate". there are several instances but one example is Genesis 6:2. This statement makes it seem as the woman goes along with the male. Meaning the man should know right from wrong and help lead "his mate" in the right direction. In addition, the woman was actually created from man. His rib to be exact. Which means the man was created first. He should have more wisdom to know and to inform his wife.
In conclusion, Eve made the physical decision to take from the tree and eat. However, the man did nothing to stop her or use his wisdom to prevent his wife from making the decision. Adam was created from God. Meaning in God's image and how he should act. Therefore, he should've known to trust the Lord. Since he didn't reinforce that, they both suffered the consequences. Once you are married, you are a union. At this point, responsibility falls on the couple.
After listening to Taylor's oral paper, she certainly presented a very fascinating argument. The way in which she presented her side of the gender roles concept in the Bible, (specifically with Adam and Eve) was one I had never considered. It is hard for me, however, to totally agree or totally disagree with her argument.
ReplyDeleteTo start, I would have to disagree with her statement that because Eve was not alive at the time when God told Adam about the Tree of Knowledge, she did not know the potential consequences of her future actions (the fall of man). Although nowhere in the book of Genesis does it say that God also told Eve about the tree as He told Adam, chapter 3 verse 3 says: (in the words of Eve) "It's only the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God said, 'You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.'" (NLT) This is controversial because up until this point in the scripture, it does appear that God never spoke to Eve directly about the tree. However, this verse from chapter 3 clearly depicts Eve's knowledge of God's command.
To continue my argument that Eve was completely aware of the Tree of Knowledge prior to her deception, Genesis chapter 3 verse 6a reads: "The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her." This particular verse shows that Eve clearly new the consequences of her actions in saying that she knew she would gain knowledge and wisdom from the tree, and at that moment, the thought was irresistible to her.
Going back to the beginning of my post, I understand Taylor's argument in that God never spoke to Eve directly about the tree as He did to Adam. Although it is not written in the scripture, somewhere between chapters 2 and 3, Eve was, for lack of a better term, "informed" about the tree. Although this is hard for us now to understand at this point in time from a logical standpoint, Eve did somehow know about the tree before the temptation of the serpent.
Although my post disagrees with one of Taylor's claims, I do agree with another one of her points; that the man is equally responsible for the Fall of Man as the woman. In chapter 3 verse 6b, Adam takes the fruit from Eve (knowing the consequences as he was directly commanded by God) and eats it. The purpose of my disagreement is in no way "male oriented." It is not my goal to say it was all the fault of the female. As I said before, Adam was equally responsible, (also another one of Taylor's claims.) Overall, she made a great argument, pointing out that Eve had not yet been created when God commanded Adam to not eat from the tree so she never heard the commandment, and in turn, didn't know about the tree. However, the Biblical evidence says otherwise.
I would like to start by saying I liked Taylor’s argument. I completely agree with her that Adam and Eve were both responsible for sin entering the world as stated in her thesis. I would disagree with one point, as I mentioned in class, and I would like to add a piece of evidence in hopes of building to her argument.
ReplyDeleteGenesis 2:16-17 was used to point out that Eve was not present when God commanded that no one was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. While this does seem true in the text, Eve quotes it and even adds on to it in Genesis 3:3 when she is speaking to the serpent. By that logic, Eve did indeed know the rules. It is important to not show Eve as a naïve victim in not knowing any better because Genesis 3:3 clearly points at the opposite.
I think Genesis 2:24 is very key to highlight in an argument showing the shared guilt. It says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”. By that same thought, Adam and Eve worked together in all things. They made decisions together and in Genesis 3:6, as Taylor pointed out, he was there with her when she was with the serpent. The addition of Genesis 2:24, in my mind, drives home the fact that they became one unit and they acted together in this sin.
I understand that Taylor had a very difficult topic because her argument could have very easily turned into an argument attempting to blame Adam instead of them equally sharing the blame. I agree whole-heartedly that the shoulder responsibility for disobeying God’s word.
An oral presentation that I found particularly compelling and that I agreed with was Dominic's. I personally find it tragic that many people see the Bible in general and Genesis in particular as the raging of an angry God against humanity when in fact the opposite is true. Take Genesis 3 for example. Although He does indeed punish Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity) for their sin, God then makes garments for them to cover their nakedness, a beautiful act of mercy and kindness in the face of grievous sin (Genesis 3:21). My second supporting evidence comes directly after the first. Forbidding humanity from living forever is an act of God's mercy. Hear me out. God says that "man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22). He then drives Adam and Eve out of the garden and away from eternal life. This may seem like a curse, but imagine knowing of good and evil, bringing original sin into the world, and being forced to live eternally, carrying that weight around in a cursed and fallen world forever. That would be unimaginable torture. Although eternal life in paradise would have been a blessing, eternal life in this world would be a curse, and God has protected us from that. Overall, I enjoyed Dominic's juxtaposition of punishment and mercy, and I hope that these points were able to expound upon his thesis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex’s presentation on God using people with what society views as disabilities and using those features as an asset to His plan. Alex brought up fertility, class, ethnicity, and age disabilities. The class issue could be extended to the familial standing. This is evident in Judges 6 with Gideon defeating the Midianites. Though Gideon was of the “weakest clan in Manasseh” and “the least in [his] father’s house,” (Judges 6:15 ESV) God chose him to lead the 300 men to free the Israelites from the Midian oppressors.
ReplyDeletePeople with societal infirmities outside of the four that were presented were also used. One of these societal disabilities, and a moral one as well, that was found in a character God chose to use is deceitfulness. While Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, into giving him the blessing instead of Esau (Genesis 27), God still chose to bless him (Genesis 35:9-12).
These are just two examples, in addition to the evidence that Alex presented, to show that although people are imperfect, God still chose those at a lesser advantage to fulfill His plan.
Who Should Get the Blame for Original Sin—Adam or Eve?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor. I think they both were responsible.
Genesis 3 says that Eve ate the fruit first, but Romans 5 says that Adam caused sin to enter the world.
The “Problem”
The Fall of Man in Genesis indicates that Eve ate the fruit first. This statement has led some people to believe that Eve was the person responsible for original sin. But is that an accurate or fair statement? Is Eve to blame for original sin?
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6).
This verse makes it clear that Eve was the first to eat the fruit from the tree and gained knowledge of good and evil. God had told Adam not to eat from the tree, but Eve also had knowledge of this (Genesis 3:2–3). Adam ate but only after Eve. From this verse alone it might be easy to think that Eve is indeed to blame for original sin since she sinned first. However, the Bible never states that Adam’s sin was worse than Eve’s. Both were punished for their sin (Genesis 3:16–19).
In Christian theology, just as sin and death came through one man, Adam, it is also through one man, the Messiah Jesus Christ, that grace and righteousness are free gifts given to sinners. Christ is named as the Last Adam. .
In Christian theology, although Eve was the first to sin, the solution to sin will come through “her Seed” (Genesis 3:15). The Seed is Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary. Christ paid the price for sin and will redeem those who receive the salvation He offers by believing in Him.
Conclusion
Scripture makes it clear that that sin and death entered this world through both Adam and Eve.
I would have to agree with Taylor when she pointed out that both Adam and Eve are responsible for the sin. The one thing that really opened my eyes to the whole idea is when she pointed out the fact that Eve wasn't even created when God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Growing up going to Catholic school my whole life until now, I was always taught that they were both told by God not to do it, but they continued to do it anyways. Going back and reading the text I did find that Genesis 3:1-3 does say that the serpent approached Eve and asked about the tree and she did know about it and how she wasn't allowed to eat from it. There is also part of me that could think that God created Eve knowing that already, there's also the possibility that Adam told her, but either way she was educated on the subject of the tree that they could not eat from.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that man is equally responsible for sinning, he was the first one to know about the command from God and that was the only rule they had. Given Eve did eat the fruit first (Gen 3:6) she then gave it to her husband and he took a bite as well. Yes, Eve did take the first bite but my question is why didn't Adam say something to her about it. Maybe its a possibility that he knew bad things would happen already since she ate it so he thought why not do it too because bad things were bound to happen either way now that one of them did it.
The one thing that I disagree with the most is the fact that she said adam should not be portrayed naive victim but a guilty partner. I don't really see how Adam is portrayed as gullible besides the fact that he ate the fruit after eve gave it to him. I've never known anyone to look at Adam as the one who got tricked. Ive always been taught that both Adam and eve were equally guilty so it was interesting to me to hear that other people look at it differently.
Taylor's oral presentation is very interesting point of argument. My view point on this argument, even though it is controversial to take one side since both are failed to pass the God command according Genesis 2:16-17. I agree with Taylor that Adam was much responsible because Eve was tempted by evil snake deceiver but Adam could safe her and make her free of snake trap. Adam made a mistake and tried to put blame on Eve, while he knew her mistake and could correct her. Adam knew that the fruit Eve brought to him was the forbidden fruit. Therefore, he should away from it and safe Eve from snake deceive that they could be free from the consequences. He made a big mistake taking the fruit to eat while he know for sure he is going to die. Another mistake he blame God to made Eve for him that she became reason for him to fail. Therefore, I believe both are guilty and equally share consequences of failing of God command and need equally redemption.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Alex's argument about how God may use certain people or even animals with what is considered disabilities. I thought it was an interesting take on looking at the different stories we have read so far. I believe that when looking at most of the characters in Genesis, each one of them has a flaw that will eventually be a disadvantage to what they want to do or who they want to be. For example: you can see Hagar as being disabled in the part that she had really no choice because she was a servant of Sarah. Genesis 16:2 "And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." and Abram listened to the voice of Sarai." Another big one that we see in Genesis is the difference of the animals and how some basically are in a way praised for being "clean" unlike others that may be viewed as "unclean." Genesis 7:2 "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth." The way I look at this is like the way that God may view Noah and Abraham. Righteous. The disability to not be viewed that way kind of puts you a step down to not be considered "clean" or righteous.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to Taylor Lambert's oral paper, I really liked and agree with the point she made about Adam and Eve both being responsible for sin entering the world. Although I do agree with her point about BOTH of them being equally responsible for this sin, I disagree with her point about Eve not knowing any better than to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Taylor's oral presentation, Genesis 2:16-17 were used to provide evidence that Eve did not know any better than to eat the fruit, because she had not yet been created when God made this command to Adam. However, there is also evidence that shows that Eve does indeed know better than to eat from the tree. Both of my examples come from Genesis 3:2-3. Eve says, "It's only fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat." Secondly, Eve says, "God said 'You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.'" This evidence from Genesis proves that Eve does know better than to eat the fruit, even though she had not yet been created when God commanded this rule to Adam. I strongly agree with Taylor in her point that both Adam and Eve are guilty of sin entering the world, but I do disagree with the point that Eve did not know any better.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed listening to Dominic's oral paper. Although he said he does not enjoy public speaking, he has a real talent for it. I agree with his point of view because of the evidence that was provided. For instance, the public sees Adam and Eve as disobeying God and he punishes all of mankind. Something that is often overlooked is that Eve is still able to conceive and Adam does produce crops from the land. The first additional biblical scene I would incorporate is Ham's encounter with Noah. Genesis 9:24 and Genesis 10:6-20. Even though Ham wronged Noah, he ends up being the father of a great clan. The second scene I would mention in this argument Joseph's interpretation of the baker's dream. In Genesis 40:23 the baker's dream is interpreted correctly, but he forgets to tell the king to free Joseph. Then in Genesis 41:9 the baker remembers to tell the king about Joseph's gift of reading dreams. Again, I completely agree with this oral paper. He did a great job presenting it.
ReplyDeleteI entirely agree with the argument that Dominic Oto discusses in his oral paper. His thesis focuses on a trend that disuses how the implied curses of the bible are actually "judgment by a righteous God" We see the mercy and rescue of his chosen people. While Dominic did provide plenty of fantastic arguments in the book of Genesis, there were many other arguments that could continue to strengthen his thesis and verify my agreement with his argument. These come from both Judges and Genesis and focus on the cyclical pattern of disobedience, chaos, and grace. Our first example comes from Judges 3: 3-11. The people of Isreal had failed to drive out the Hitties and began to intermarry with these people, whats worse, they began to serve their gods. God allowed these foreign peoples to enslave the Israelites and for eight years, they lived in turmoil and Chaos. Yet God showed mercy by sending a Judge, Othniel, to leave them out of Slavery. A prime example of punishment and divine mercy to his people. Another example comes from Genesis 16 when Abraham is given a son through Hagar. A son was promised to Sarah and Abraham. Yet as time went on, Sarah became impatient and had Abraham sleep with Sarah, a breech in a covenant with God, yet God still blesses Sarah to have children, doing his part to fulfill the covenant he made with Abraham. He even blesses Ishmael in the process, continuing to show mercy to an imperfect world. Dom, did a great job not only in public speaking, but conveying his message and I just added a few more examples to verify an already strong thesis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tatiana's argument that Jacob's favored upbringing, is the source of much emotional trauma for his descendants. I would like to argue that the favoritism started much earlier with Noah cursing his youngest Ham, and blessing his other children (Gen 9:25-27). This favoritism carries down the line until we reach Abraham, who banishes his Hagar and Ishmael, so that the Isaac may inherit (Gen 21:14).
ReplyDeleteBy the time Jacob has his own children, showing favoritism to a child is more of a family tradition than anything. I believe he would not be able to understand the repercussions as he would just consider it a normal part of things.
I found Noah and Carson’s presentation really interesting and I definitely agree with their point about the purposefulness of the breaching of structure to carry out God’s plan. I agree because of the wide variety and repetition of examples seen in Genesis (Abraham and Hagar, Jacob and Esau) many of which they elaborated on in their paper. Supporting evidence of this concept also appears in Esther. She becomes queen while practicing deceit - hiding her Jewish identity from the Persians (Esther 2). In doing something God condemns - lying/deception - Esther still succeeds, (like many other Israelites) so that she is able to eventually save all of the Jews in the empire (God’s plan). A reverse of this also occurs, where the protagonist’s transgression is against man-made structures rather than God’s. Esther demonstrates this with Mordecai – in his refusal to worship Haman as the rest of the civilians do and as was ordered by the king (because God advises not to worship anyone but Him), he follows God’s orders but ostracizes himself by disrupting the common practice. This danger, however, soon leads to him being elevated to Haman’s position (Esther 10), from which he can better protect his people living in Persia (God’s plan). Ultimately, I think all the examples demonstrate God’s continuous favor toward his imperfect people, and his dedication to maintaining worldly order while working around and sometimes orchestrating their mishaps - and Noah and Carson did well in explaining that.
ReplyDeleteI highly enjoyed Dominic’s presentation as his thesis was an idea I had noticed as we read through Genesis this semester. Before this class, I often fell into the mindset that many of God’s actions were done out of anger and were often unfair. However, a closer reading and deeper discussion of the text showed me that many of His actions actually show His unfailing love and mercy for His people, just as Dominic argued in his thesis. Two additional places where we can see this theme are shown in Genesis 18:16-19:29 and Genesis 15-16. In Genesis 18:16-19:29, God tells Abraham of His plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah due to the evil prevailing in the cities. While this seems as if it might be a cruel punishment, the Lord promises to Abraham that He will save the cities in an act of mercy if only 10 righteous are to be found there. Although there are not 10 righteous people in the cities, we see that the Lord still sends two angels to warn Lot and his family to leave the city before it is destroyed. This is an act of God’s mercy even as He fulfills His judgment on the people. In Genesis 15-16, we also see that God keeps His covenant with Abraham through his son Ishmael. God promised Abraham “Look up into the sky and count the stars if you can. That’s how many descendants you will have” (Genesis 15:5). Sarah’s unbelief in this promise leads her to prompt Abraham to sleep with her servant, which he complies with. While we are never shown God’s approval of Abraham sleeping with Hagar to continue his lineage, we are shown that God keeps His covenant with Abraham and still blesses Ishmael’s lineage. God could have chosen to punish Abraham for not having faith in His covenant, but He shows mercy through His blessing of Ishmael. Overall, Dominic did a great job of explaining how a multitude of events show God’s mercy through His just judgements.
ReplyDeleteI think Tatiana's argument regarding favoring children brings emotional trauma into lineage is incredibly interesting and I agree with her. Thinking further into the topic, we know that Joseph and Benjamin were Jacob's favorite children. Jospeh's tribe eventually dissolves and Benjamin's tribe ends up being a complete disaster that we see in Judges. (2) The Benjamites bring much trouble to the chosen people (the Jews) with the derogatory term of 'left handness'. (2) On the opposite side of the coin that further supports her argument, Judea, not a favorite child at all and actually the child of Jacob's least favorite wife, ends up being the tribe head of the chosen people.
ReplyDelete* (1) The Benjamites....
DeleteTaylor Lambert presented a very intriguing concept as to the events of what happened in Eden. I entirely agree with her thesis that Adam and Eve are both guilty of the first sin, however I find fault in some of her supporting evidence. Taylor stated that since Eve was created after Yahweh commanded Adam to not eat the forbidden fruit, she was unaware of the sin she was committing. Taylor placed further blame upon Adam for being present with Eve at the time but not telling her what God said.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the notion that Eve was not fully aware of the situation. As she came directly from Adam (Genesis 2:21-22), it would make sense for her to have all the knowledge that Adam had. Also, as God made her and brought her to Adam, it would be probable that He would have spoken to her about the rule. Further supporting the idea that Eve knew the command can be found in her encounter with the serpent. In Genesis 3:2, she blatantly tells the snake that “it’s only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says we must not eat it or even touch it, or we will die”. This is before she eats the fruit, and therefore proves that she knew about God’s command and was not naïve about the situation.
-Micah Davis
After listening to Taylor’s argument, I would have to say that I agree with her. I believe that Adam and Eve are both responsible for the problem presented in Genesis. The command was given to Adam first, and he chose not to pass on the command to Eve while she was being tempted. After looking through the text, it is apparent that there are multiple examples found within the text to place the blame. In Genesis 2, it states that she was not alive when the command was announced to Adam, however you can find instances where she admits knowing about the one and only rule that they had. The second example that I was able to find throughout the text was in Genesis 6, I believe. It phrases man and woman as one and as a “unit.” If this is the case, they should lead each other in the right direction and ensure that all rules are being obeyed, especially since they only had a single rule.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to Tatiana's perspective and reasoning I ultimately agree that the favoring of one child over another brings issues in the future. To strengthen her argument I would add the favoritism showed towards Abel. While it wasn't so much the parents showing favoritism, God himself shows favor of Abel's sacrifice compared to Cain's. This is in Genesis 4:3-11. God's favor of Abel's sacrifice led to Cain's jealousy and eventually Abel's death. Another instance of favoritism is when Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis 21:14. While nothing terrible happened because of this, favoritism is still seen. Isaac gets the honor and birth right and is made to lead the Hebrew nation and Ishmael is cast aside. The amount of favoritism shown in the book of Genesis could be considered alarming, but it is used to teach a lesson that favoritism leads to jealousy.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Carson's outline, as I was not present for the presentations, I agree with his standpoint that Genesis as well as Judges are defined by a breaking of "structure" in mans covenant with God. However, I believe these structural breaks should categorized in one of two ways and not clumped together as a whole. There are ample examples of humans acting in direct defiance of God in these books, but they tend to trend one of two ways, God's promise of prosperity being fulfilled despite rebellion, and times when structure is broken, and his wrath is justly inflicted. For example, in the case of Sarah, despite her breaking God's laws of the sanctity of marriage, she is still blessed with a child at an age when such should not be possible, however it does bring a wrath, not of God, but of Sarah, upon Hagar. As Sarah breaks this, she is not seemingly punished by God in any manner, however from this sin, suffering does ensue for others because of her choice. In comparison, as Jacob favors Joseph, he is seemingly ripped away from his family and "killed". However, it should be said that in all instances of sin and repentance that appears cyclicly throughout both Genesis and Judges, despite humans inherent sinful ways, and God's apparent laws that he declares sacred, he always uses the sin of humans for good, revealing yet another structure, one unknown to humans, but in God's master plan. It is said humans are born inherently sinful, and as God demands they follow his guidelines and his commands, God's "structure" ultimately is created in the inevitability that humans will reject and go against his laws. The ultimate grace is despite this, he continually leads characters in these books to grace, even in drawn out times of suffering such as the period of slavery in Exodus, ends in his ultimate goal which is intended for good. The Bible says that when we cry, God cries with us, and I think that is exemplified in these books, a testament to humans inherent sin and God's limitless grace.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to Dominic’s argument, I would agree with his thesis that the God of Genesis is more just and righteous than an evil and an unmerciful. It would be easy to believe the latter due to the punishments inflicted on the people of Genesis. But more often than not, God has given them continual chances, avoiding the harshest punishments.
ReplyDeleteGenesis 19:26. But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
God had instructed Lot and his family to not turn around, after already agreeing to spare the city if they found 10 good people.
Genesis 18:26 Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it."
I would even take this further when examining God’s intervention in the lives of Jacob. Jacob consistently made mistakes, stole from his brother, created discourse between his wives and his children-yet God chose to make him the lineage holder of the tribes of Israel.
Genesis 32:28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
God continually extended mercy on Jacob and as Dominic said, many individuals and families throughout the book of Genesis to make his purpose known and his plan succeed.
I really enjoyed listening to Tatiana’s oral paper presentation, and agree with her examination of the cycle and consequences of jealousy throughout the family lineage of Jacobs line. As she went over jealousy of Esau and Jacob and Jacob for Joseph and Benjamin because of Jacob’s favoritism of Rachel. Taylor responded previously in her response to Tatiana’s argument by bringing up the troubles of Joseph’s and Benjamin’s tribes later on, I think this is an interesting point as well. I looked at it and think it would be an interesting argument/ good addition to Tatiana’s presentation by looking at Issac and Ishmael and the jealously of Sarah that sent Hagar and Ishmael away. It would be a stretch but I believe, one could argue farther on the jealousy further back in the family lines to Noah to Seth who was brother to Cain and Abel (who was slain in jealousy), you could stretch that all the jealousy in the world descended from Eve’s jealousy and lust for worldly knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Dominic's presentation on the mercy, not anger, God demonstrated to his people in Genesis. The textual evidence he provided to support this thesis was very good. Two other instances I believe could strengthen his argument are found in Genesis 18-19 and Judges. In Genesis 18, God tells Abraham of his plans to destroy the two cities because of their wickedness. When Abraham advocates for the few righteous that my remain, God shows mercy by saying he will spare the city if there are only 10 righteous remain. In the following chapter, God sends a warning to Lot and his family before the cities were destroyed, sparing them even thoughthe 10 righteous were not found. In Judges 2:15-16 God fights the Israelites but also raises judges to rescue them from their enemies. Even though they turned their backs on God, he did not want them to perish and showed mercy through the judges.
ReplyDeleteI am just going to go ahead and continue the discussion on Taylor's argument about original sin, so if you are looking for input on a different argument, scroll past this one. :P
ReplyDeleteI agree that Eve is a guilty partner in the committing original sin; however, I have a question about the eating of the fruit. Eve ate the fruit first despite knowing the consequences, yet when she gave Adam the fruit to bite into, Eve was not aware of his nakedness until he too ate the fruit. I think this is an interesting concept because it either 1) shows the relevance of guilty *partners* in that both needed to have consumed the fruit to have their eyes opened to sinfulness, and/or 2) while Adam did not stop Eve from eating of the fruit despite being with her, if Eve's eyes were opened the moment she bit of the fruit and became aware of their nakedness while Adam remained innocent, Eve did the exact same thing Adam did to her and did not stop him from eating the fruit. Thus, both Adam and Eve did not show each other the love God gave to them to share in that moment.
-Not Anonymous Emily Geary
First of all, all the presenters did an amazing job and you all should be proud! For this particular post, I am commenting on Alex’s presentation. Specifically, over the idea that God seems to use the flaws of characters (disabilities) in the book of Genesis to ultimately show that through their flaws, they can actually create something more in line with the will of God such as faith, a blessed life, etc. While I think Alex had a compelling argument, I am going to disagree with his premise to show a different perspective. In Genesis 4 we see the first murder committed when Cain kills Abel. I am going to argue that Cain, while he may have been jealous of his brother, seems to have problems controlling his temper and lashes out easily. This signals that he may have a certain issue with anger management. Although we see God’s mercy towards Cain by providing him with a mark (Genesis 4:15), Cain does not seem to gain more faith or blessings due to his disability in this case. Another example of a potential disability that seems to not necessarily reap direct rewards or an opposite of the disability is Jacob in Genesis 25 and 27. I would like to argue that Jacob has an emotional disability that is somewhere in the area of pathological lying. As we famously know, he both cheated Esau out of his birthright and stole his blessing. While it is true that Jacob ends up with a large family and blessed people in his family line such as Joseph, he is never shown to have gained a better appreciation for the truth. I think Alex had very strong examples to support his argument and just thought that I would share this other perspective that I seemed to notice throughout Genesis.
ReplyDeleteaAfter listening to all the presentations last week, I would agree with Abbey and Micah's thesis. "Acting for Yahweh's purpose and their people rather than doing it for their own personal gain."
ReplyDeleteI believe that during this time period, women were having children for power. Unlike today, most people have children because they fall in love, get married, and have kids so that they can start a family and have a legacy. I am reflecting back to Ruth (3:9) as an example. Ruth became the mother of Obed, grandfather of David. Ruth took care of this child after loosing her own children. Naomi gave her a child so that their families legacy could continue on.
Another example that comes to mind is, Hannah in 1st Samuel. She was unable to have children. To me, Hannah demonstrated faith and sacrifice. Just like a lot of the women had to make sacrifices for their husbands when it came to having children. In my eyes, it seemed like women who weren't capable of having children were powerless and less valuable. Since Hannah couldn't have children it left her bitter. She wanted children so bad that she offered to give her child to the Lord if she became pregnant. Which happened. Hannah's relationship with the Lord inevitably became better.
These are two examples that show women act for Yahweh's purpose in comparison to doing it for their own personal reasons. They have children and families because it's supposed to be right in Yahweh's eyes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete