Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
William

Genesis 3:4-5 question about deity

Recommended Posts

Staff

Genesis 3:4-5,  But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

I am examining the lie of Satan in Genesis 3:4-5. Is Satan implying that man will be "god" or "God"? And how would you differentiate between the two? Please also consider touching upon the eternal state of your definition. For example, can "gods" exists from a point of time or have a beginning but not necessarily an end?

 

Thanks and God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

I dont know how to answer that one. But perhaps the word like has more baring then we think. They became like God in knowing good and evil, but not that they became like God because of that knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
9 minutes ago, Hitch said:

'Knowing good and evil'   as used  infers deciding , rather than simply understanding.

 

Ok, verse 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened", can a god or God have a qualitative change of mind? In other words can either "not see" and then "see"?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Please bear with me and be gracious. Could anyone chime in and just express your insight, thoughts, etc. Lots of the questions or comments posed are helping me identify objections and tackle clarification on a study.

 

Can anyone elaborate on "seeing" or having "eyes opened" in Genesis 3:5?

 

"Your eyes shall be opened is an expression denoting the acquisition of discernment to apprehend that which before had been hidden from ordinary sight." - Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

 

Ok, given that definition my question, how much or how little does "to see" have to do with what was hidden from ordinary sight in the office of priest or prophet?

 

For example, John 9:39-41 & what follows, Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.
 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, William said:

Ok, verse 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened", can a god or God have a qualitative change of mind? In other words can either "not see" and then "see"?

I suggest you consider the speaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
20 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I suggest you consider the speaker.

How so? By speaker, I take that you are referring to Satan, and not the author such as Moses, or the Holy Spirit? And I'm somewhat intrigued about how a lie can so closely parallel truth that together they become grey. Just as black and white parallel lines when seen from various distances. 

 

God bless,

William 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, William said:

How so? By speaker, I take that you are referring to Satan, and not the author such as Moses, or the Holy Spirit? And I'm somewhat intrigued about how a lie can so closely parallel truth that it becomes grey. Just as black and white parallel lines when seen from various distances. 

 

God bless,

William 

He was successful  charming Eve,  he even tried it with  Christ,' All these things  I will give thee' as though  he ,not God, controls the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
14 minutes ago, Hitch said:

He was successful  charming Eve,  he even tried it with  Christ,' All these things  I will give thee' as though  he ,not God, controls the king.

Right, and Satan just "tempted" Jesus in a way that only God could. Do you think Satan asking Jesus to turn stones into bread as God could only do would be tempting? What Satan just asked of Jesus was incredible. Not that God can be tempted but that an outside influence may attempt to tempt Him. If God performed miracles or signs and wonders in order to gain following (kingdoms of the world) how would that differ from God's plan? We see that Jesus was followed by people and after Jesus offered bread (John 6:51) they departed Him (John 6:66). Perhaps if Jesus performed a miracle of turning stones into bread they may of ate? I can see them now nibbling on Jesus' arm. :classic_laugh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, William said:

“Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

Chomp.... I reckon the answer to that question  is here in your quote.  Each miracle stands as a witness for the Prosecution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
7 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Chomp.... I reckon the answer to that question  is here in your quote.  Each miracle stands as a witness for the Prosecution.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Is wanting to be a god necessarily bad? We have attributes of God being made in His image and up until the fall man was not even condemned to death. So, I'm thinking that there must be a difference between what we had before and then after the act of taking fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

The very act of Adam naming all living creatures was an exercise of dominion and judgment which requires discernment from one creature to another in the naming of all living things. Was this good? And how did this differ from evil?

 

Lemme ask while on the point of gods. Historically, were gods the personification of Nature's laws which are subject to the almighty God? I do not believe there are "autonomous" laws in themselves, but they are subject to a higher Law Giver. Can a god rule of good only despite having intimate knowledge of evil or knowing evil?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 2:27 PM, William said:

Genesis 3:4-5,  But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Maybe I am over simplifying the verse, but to me the only lie in those verses is you will not die.

Verse 5 to me is a truth not a lie

Their eyes were opened, they knew sin for the first time, they knew they were naked for the first time. God knows what good and evil are,  

After eating the apple they were like God in knowing good and evil. I think that's all it means

Verse 6

 

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,

 

Eve is thinking the tree is going to give her wisdom not that she will be a god. she is going to learn something and she does. She learns what sin is, she learns what separation from God is, she learns what evil is

 

Its kind of like telling a child to eat all your veggies, so they can be like daddy big and strong. Eat and you wont be daddy, but you'll be big and strong like daddy

 

Satan said eat and you will be like God knowing good and evil. I don't think he is saying eat and be a god, but eat and you will know good and evil like God does, I think verse 6 backs that up

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 
 

Was the phrasing of verse 5 a quote of satan or a descriptive phrase. He whispers in our ears subtil lies as often as he speaks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 hours ago, Guppy said:

Maybe I am over simplifying the verse, but to me the only lie in those verses is you will not die.

Verse 5 to me is a truth not a lie

Their eyes were opened, they knew sin for the first time, they knew they were naked for the first time. God knows what good and evil are, 

Hi Guppy,

 

Nice to see you back!

 

Lemme ask, do you think a person's eyes are not open until they sin and see the affects of sin? In other words when a person is dead in sin and trespasses are they then really conscious of sin?

 

4 hours ago, Guppy said:

After eating the apple they were like God in knowing good and evil. I think that's all it means

I do not really care to go into which fruit is the actual physical fruit here like an apple, fig, etc., but what is fruit? And a question about the fruit of the tree "Good and Evil", what was the fruit of Satan in which Eve repeated in the act of offering it to her husband?

 

Consider the lie in verse 6, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

 

Here are my thoughts, deception has an element of lying, not always from an external source or influence but sometimes inwardly. The Serpent first lied and offered the lie as an alternative to God's commandment drawing the woman to question God's will. Second, Eve lied to herself, she was self-deceived and the falsehood became truthful 1 Timothy 2:14 "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Eve then repeated the lie in the act of giving Adam the forbidden fruit.

 

There are several sins Eve committed here in light of both the Old and New Testaments which follow. I wouldn't mind examining the lie of Satan or Eve's sins, however, I'd just like to point out that Adam and Eve had access to the Tree of Life up until this point. Genesis 2:9 "And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Adam "alone" exercised dominion by the act of naming every living creature which requires both judgment and discernment from one living creature to another. God commanded Adam to do this, and obviously the command was twisted into something else and Eve desired this authority which was given to Adam in headship. Notice the contrasting punishment of God to Eve in Genesis 3:16, "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
 

Lastly, do you think this pretty much sums up the deceitful lying doctrine of Satan from Genesis 3:5, they'll be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over themselves apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself?

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

@Guppy Did Adam die the day he ate the fruit of the tree in the garden?

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:37 AM, William said:

Lemme ask, do you think a person's eyes are not open until they sin and see the affects of sin? In other words when a person is dead in sin and trespasses are they then really conscious of sin?

I do believe people dead in sin know the difference between right and wrong, but Adam had not yet sinned. Satan had not yet whispered in their ears. I question did they know sin at this time, I don't believe they did.

 

You suggest that Eve desired His authority, I am not sure, you may be right

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:37 AM, William said:

." Adam "alone" exercised dominion by the act of naming every living creature which requires both judgment and discernment from one living creature to another.

 Eve had not yet been created, when Adam named every living creature. Adam was alone and why Eve was created.

Would Eve desire something that she was not there to do?

I don't want to misunderstand. Are you suggesting that Eve may have had sin in her heart?

 

I don't think that's possible, unless Satan was already talking to her, but we are not told that.

I don't believe there was sin in the garden until they ate the fruit.

Sin is why they had to leave the garden.  The Garden is like a picture of heaven, sinful man was not allowed to be in the garden.

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:37 AM, William said:

Eve desired this authority which was given to Adam in headship. Notice the contrasting punishment of God to Eve in Genesis 3:16, "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Again, I think what you are saying is possible, but I don't believe she could have had sin in her heart while they were in the

Garden. I find it interesting that they didn't know they were naked, until they sinned. just a thought, could they have been clothed in God glory and it was taken away from them when they sinned. They sinned and saw their nakedness.

 

my point is only that I don't see it possible Eve was caring sin in her heart.

 

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:37 AM, William said:

Lastly, do you think this pretty much sums up the deceitful lying doctrine of Satan from Genesis 3:5, they'll be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over themselves apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself?

Again I don't think that was the lie.

Gen 3:22

 

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

 

Here God is saying the same thing, Man has now become like one of us knowing good and evil.

The fact that God confirms it, makes it a true statement not a lie

 

Is God calling man "gods"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 11:25 AM, Becky said:

@Guppy Did Adam die the day he ate the fruit of the tree in the garden? 

Hi Becky

I don't understand what you are asking me, no Adam did not die that day, but he surely died.

unless you believe Adam had no chance of redemption, then you could say he died that day as well

 

I don't believe he died that day

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
5 minutes ago, Guppy said:

Hi Becky

I don't understand what you are asking me, no Adam did not die that day, but he surely died.

unless you believe Adam had no chance of redemption, then you could say he died that day as well

 

I don't believe he died that day

 

Here is what i see us doing with this passage..  We accept what satan said as truth. He said this.

 Gen 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 
Gen 3:5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 

God said this: 

Gen 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
 

Something is goofy with our understanding .. Husband is saying hurry up i will be back later

 

Share this post


Link to post

I apologize, I still don't understand what you are asking me

in my first post I said, Satan's lie was you shall not die. That was a lie. I said verse 5 was a true statement, that their eyes would be opened and they would be like God knowing what good and evil was. I don't believe up to this point that knew what evil was.

 

As for verse 2:17 maybe our confusion is caused by the translations we use. I use the NIV

Gen 2:17. the NIV

.but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 hours ago, Guppy said:

Hi Becky

I don't understand what you are asking me, no Adam did not die that day, but he surely died.

unless you believe Adam had no chance of redemption, then you could say he died that day as well

 

I don't believe he died that day

 

Here you said "I don't believe he died that day. "

God said this 

 

Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
Gen 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
 

Gen 2:17. the NIV

.but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” I ask when did he eat the apple? That is when he died.

 

I kinda think we ( mankind) need to understand what  kind of dying God is/was important to God. God said he would die that day so Adam did. Mankind often tends to think  physical death is the most important.  Maybe if i ask the question like this it will explane what  i am getting at.  Would you rather be saved and  dead of physical body or dead in sin? 

 

I am in no way saying my thoughts are THEE TRUTH of Gods Word... I am asking , learning, talking throwing out thoughts. Where i am wanting to end up is understanding the 'first resurrection' .  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you Becky.

I hope I haven't come across as saying, I am right and you are wrong.

I too am only giving my thoughts

If Adam died that day, what died?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

@Guppy i think we are having a nice conversation :classic_smile:  

Theologians might have my neck for this ... Before the fall Adam was sinless . He talked with God. He walked with God all that kind of stuff. Kinda what most of us think of heaven. Adam was not shy around God until he ate then he hid. He was no longer alive in his innocents. Adam now needed salvation. He was dead in sin. 

 God said Adam would die  ;The different translation dont read different to me. 

for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
 for when you eat from it you will certainly die

Something in Adam died. His spirit? His soul?   God said he would die so he did , when he was forgiven was he resurrected? Quickened? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 1:27 PM, William said:

Genesis 3:4-5,  But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

I am examining the lie of Satan in Genesis 3:4-5. Is Satan implying that man will be "god" or "God"? And how would you differentiate between the two? Please also consider touching upon the eternal state of your definition. For example, can "gods" exists from a point of time or have a beginning but not necessarily an end?

 

Thanks and God bless,

William

I think the expression from Satan " And you will be like God " implies a temptation with great promise for the first woman and man in creation. The strategy was to place before them the possibility of doing the creative works of God " Like God " because it is obvious that they were in a position to actually see God in His act of creating the animal , vegetable , mineral and human life if not the universe itself . The temptation would have been too great to turn away from . R.C. Sproul once did a sermon concerning God's pre disposed plan of actually creating the universe and human life knowing before hand that the first man and woman would fall and bring sin into the world. What say you ? Could God have deliberately created the universe for His own purpose ? Was everything preplanned , causing  the fall happen ?   There is no real indication that can be derived from Holy Writ . Only speculation .       M

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 hours ago, Matthew Duvall said:

I think the expression from Satan " And you will be like God " implies a temptation with great promise for the first woman and man in creation. The strategy was to place before them the possibility of doing the creative works of God " Like God " because it is obvious that they were in a position to actually see God in His act of creating the animal , vegetable , mineral and human life if not the universe itself . The temptation would have been too great to turn away from . R.C. Sproul once did a sermon concerning God's pre disposed plan of actually creating the universe and human life knowing before hand that the first man and woman would fall and bring sin into the world. What say you ? Could God have deliberately created the universe for His own purpose ? Was everything preplanned , causing  the fall happen ?   There is no real indication that can be derived from Holy Writ . Only speculation .       M

Interesting, the very commandments which God made resulted in creation (everything from the smallest particle to grandest galaxy operates according to Law). In the context, I can definitely yield to the idea that Satan tempted Eve (the mother of all living) with the office of Lawgiver (over nature or creation). This doesn't change my position that Eve was tempted by headship, it only furthers the severity of the woman's temptation to take upon herself as mother the very roles of God the Father. 

 

4 hours ago, Matthew Duvall said:

R.C. Sproul once did a sermon concerning God's pre disposed plan of actually creating the universe and human life knowing before hand that the first man and woman would fall and bring sin into the world. What say you ? Could God have deliberately created the universe for His own purpose ? Was everything preplanned , causing  the fall happen ?   There is no real indication that can be derived from Holy Writ . Only speculation .       M

Why would God make the first negative command in Genesis 2:17 if God had not known the preplanned outcome? God broke from a pattern of positive commands to the very first negative command in Genesis 2:17. Does anyone think this was for no reason? Was God "speculating"?

 

Lemme throw a negative command at you Matthew, "don't think about a pink elephant". Why would a person fail to live up to that commandment?

 

Appreciate your input, Matthew!

God bless,

William 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Poll Question: The Rich man and Lazarus Parable or Not?

      Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable and does it really make a difference?  Wouldn't the story still teach the same truths even if is a parable?   John Calvin held the view that it is not a parable but he also states "But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains."

      in Bible Study

    • Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in New York barred the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. The decision appears to have significant implications for a related matter the Supreme Court is poised to decide in the spring. “The attempts by the Trump administration to mandate a question about citizenship were not rooted in a desire to strengthen the census process and would only undermine our immigrant communities,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Inciting fear in our residents is not only immoral, but also ill-conceived.” The Constitution mandates a census every ten years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A coalition of Democratic cities, states, and interest groups challenged the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire in April 2018, warning it would discourage minority participation. An incomplete survey of minority populations, the plaintiffs feared, would result in diminished federal funds and congressional representation for urban areas. The plaintiffs charged that the addition of the citizenship question violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law establishing protocols for the issuance of regulations. In his Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman accepted the plaintiffs’ APA claims while rejecting their constitutional arguments. “[Ross] failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices — a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA violations,” Furman wrote. Elsewhere in the decision, Furman said Ross was not truthful about his motives for adding a citizenship question. Though the secretary initially said publicly that the question was added at the request of the Department of Justice, subsequent evidence showed Ross discussed the matter with White House aides far earlier than initially understood. “Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual — that is, that the real reason for his decision was something other than the sole reason he put forward in his memorandum,” Furman wrote. Former President Barack Obama elevated Furman to the federal bench in 2012. The plaintiffs sought a deposition from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a previous phase of the litigation. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau, and Ross himself authorized the addition of the citizenship question. Though Furman authorized the Ross deposition, the Supreme Court intervened to stop it in October 2018. Shortly thereafter in November 2018, the high court agreed to decide what evidence Furman could rely upon when making his decision. When plaintiffs challenge agency action in court, the agency itself generally turns over the body of documents and evidence it relied upon to make its decision. Those writings are called the administrative record. In most cases of this nature, the court will make its decision based only on the administrative record. However, Furman allowed the plaintiffs to gather evidence beyond the administrative record to challenge the citizenship question. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that decision was correct. The Justice Department may appeal Furman’s decision. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • The Reverse Genesis Narrative of ‘Bird Box’

      Bird Box begins in hell. Hell, in this case, is a rapidly escalating global catastrophe—a creaturely presence that, upon being seen, drives one to sudden and violent death by suicide. The only way to save oneself is not to see this evil. Survival depends on remaining behind darkened windows when inside and wearing a blindfold when out. Adapted from a 2014 novel, the Netflix original film (directed by Danish filmmaker Susanne Bier) was viewed a record-breaking 45 million times within a week of its release. As thrillers go, Bird Box is intense. (It kept the adrenaline of this suspense addict jacked up for all 124 minutes.) The suicide scenes are so disturbing that some have (understandably) called for trigger warnings for the sake of viewers struggling with mental illness or suicidal thoughts. The suspenseful content is heightened by the story’s artful structure, which effectively cuts back and forth between scenes taking place just before, during, and several years after the onset of the apocalypse. This non-chronological order does more than just build suspense, however. It also highlights the development of the central character, Malorie (Sandra Bullock), from reluctant to loving mother. Horror of Parenting This parenting theme is one reason many compare Bird Box to last year’s A Quiet Place, leaving some to wonder if the former merely imitated the latter (which isn’t the case, since the novel Bird Box was published in 2014, with the film rights sold in 2013 before the book was even released). Even so, the similarities between the films are notable. Viewers unversed in the genre may not realize how central a role parenting—whether good or ill—plays in horror films from Carrie to Halloween to The Shining. Both A Quiet Place and Bird Box portray parents and parenting in a positive light—an unexpected, but welcome tilt of a common trope. The horror in these two films is also directly connected to the senses—hearing in A Quiet Place and sight in Bird Box. In this age of sensory overload (manifested, increasingly and not surprisingly, in sensory disorders), these films demonstrate how the horror genre always deals in some way with whatever scares us most in any given age. What scares Malorie is becoming a parent. The film hints that her fears about becoming a mother are directly connected to her own parents’ problems. In a conversation with her sister (Sarah Paulson) about a horse her sister hopes to purchase, Malorie says wryly, “Great to be a horse. Then we would have, like, a mother who would have actually raised us and a father off on some faraway stud farm.” “Hold on,” her sister responds. “Our father was off on a faraway stud farm.” The film opens several years after this conversation, with Malorie sharply commanding a young boy and girl, both blindfolded as they set off on a dangerous boat ride down a river. Then a flashback (the first of many) returns to a heavily pregnant (and single) Malorie, who is so detached from the child she carries that her obstetrician gently suggests she consider placing the baby up for adoption. Not only does Malorie keep the child (birthed in terrifying circumstances, also similar to A Quiet Place), but she also takes into her care another child whose mother falls victim to the apocalyptic plague. Adoption thus emerges as one of the film’s more subtle but interesting themes, a theme reinforced by the birds of the titular box. Birds and Blindness The birds serve a number of functions in the story, both literal and symbolic. One thematic purpose is explicit in the film’s script but doesn’t appear to show up in the film. The movie portrays Malorie obtaining the birds in an abandoned grocery store. The script states that “a trampled sign on the floor” reads, “TODAY ONLY / ADOPT A PET!” Malorie does. The investment of so much care in such seemingly insignificant creatures as small birds, under the circumstances, is a stretch of the imagination—unless viewed within the context of the film’s central theme about risking love in a dangerous world. It’s a world in which loving someone—a child, a sibling, a spouse, even a pet—all but guarantees the pain of loss. The thematic significance of the film’s central image of blindness/seeing goes back at least as far as the ancient Greek dramatist Sophocles, and much chatter by viewers (not to mention the viral memes) about Bird Box centers on interpretations of just what kind of moral, personal, or social “blindness” the film suggests. Echoes of Genesis However, it’s the more subtle archetypal symbols that increase the film’s interest for me (spoilers below). The safety Malorie seeks for herself and the children is found in a boat, a type of ark. At a critical moment, Malorie faces a kind of Sophie’s Choice between one life or another—and refuses to choose. Immediately afterward, the boat capsizes, and the trio’s journey on the boat ends. She and the children are immersed the river’s waters in a kind of baptism before undertaking the last steps in their pilgrimage. Like Christian’s journey in Pilgrim’s Progress, they must resist the pull of voices that would lure them away from their destination. They must resist the temptation to take off the blindfold, opting instead to (literally) “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). In a reverse Genesis narrative, Bird Box ends with an entrance into, rather than an expulsion from, a kind of Eden. Unlike Adam and Eve, who were ejected from Eden for their insistence on knowing, Malorie enters not by knowing, but by trusting. This is a paradise not incorruptible like the new heaven and the new earth, but one that is lush, flourishing, full of love, and a shelter from the unseen evil terrorizing the outside world. It is a place where birds beckon and warn by song, fly free, and play upon a canopy of trees, recalling a story told earlier in the film to the children, a story of hope Malorie refused to hear because she was afraid to hope. She so lacked in hope, in fact, that she refused to name the children. Reminiscent of Cormac McCarthy’s unnamed “boy” protagonist in his apocalyptic novel The Road, the children in Bird Box are simply called “boy” and “girl.” But when Malorie arrives at an Edenic garden hidden away, she finds hope. Startlingly, delightfully, the refuge is populated by those who have what in the pre-apocalyptic world would be considered a disability but is, ironically, lifesaving. In their weakness is their strength. All along—until that pivotal point earlier in the boat—Malorie has believed her power lie in her invulnerability to both external evil and internal emotion. At last, she gives up her resistance to risky love and, like Adam in that first Eden, gives the children names, declaring to the others—but mostly herself—“I am their mother.” View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Electrical Question

      This is for the electrical engineers of the group, or at those who fancy themselves in that group.  I have a couple of motion sensor switches I want to install in my bathrooms.  The problem is that nearly nothing in this house is grounded, as it was built in the 50's.  My question is, is it possible, or simply inadvisable, to connect the ground wire of the switch to the neutral wire, which should ultimately be connected to the main ground out at the power pole?  Is this stupidly dangerous, or actually quite doable?

      in Computers & Technology

    • David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control

      By Nick Givas - Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg ignored a simple question about gun control and background checks on CNN’s “New Day” Tuesday and refused to answer directly. Host Alisyn Camerota asked Hogg if universal background checks would have prevented the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and he failed to come up with a clear answer. “I think there’s many instances and instances of gun violence that could have stopped further acts of gun violence. There’s 40,000 people that die of gun violence every year and a very small minority of them end up being in school shootings,” he replied. “When we’re talking about hardening our schools and different things, what we’re not talking about is how we’re going to make our communities safer. When we’re talking about school safety we’re neglecting the thousands of students that die either coming to school or coming back from school every day or simply just outside their house.” “Our congressmen and our elected officials have said that they don’t care about them or their violence because of the zip code they live in or the number of figures in their bank account,” Hogg continued. “And if we really want to start talking about a national emergency like the president likes to talk about, 40,000 Americans dying annually from gun violence is a pretty damn good one to start out with.” Hogg then claimed the Parkland shooting could have been prevented but didn’t provide details on what could have stopped it. He also blamed the NRA for the violence and accused them of trying to “benefit” from mass shootings. “It is an issue that is non-partisan. At least, I would hope so, considering the fact that both Democrats and Republicans die from gun violence. Bullets don’t discriminate and neither should our legislators. No legislator should look at these laws and say to themselves, oh I can’t vote on that because I’ve taken campaign contributions from the NRA. That’s what they’re thinking,” he said. “The American people need to wake up and realize again and again, the reason these laws are not getting passed — the reason why — for example, disarming people like the shooter at our high school could have happened through an extreme risk protection but didn’t is because that law was actively advocated against by the National Rifle Association. That uses due process to disarm people like terrorists and domestic abusers, but they actively try to stop because it stops these things from happening in the first place, which they benefit from. [sic] Because after every single mass shooting, gun sales go up significantly and the NRA benefits from that.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.