The problem with the Tree of Kowledge of Good and Evil.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Goldtop

Forum posts: #28Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness

  

Goldtop Ah, so God is happiest when we don't use our brains, Gotcha. That would stand to reason if God was an imbecile who hated smarter people.

Or when the human created prefers one god over another. Which is exactly what is at the core of this creation epic. The Serpent Lord was Enki AKA Ea. He and his spouse, both doctors of medicine and other skills are said to be the creators of the "Adama".  Look at the side of any western ambulance and you will see the Emblem / Symbol of this creator Serpent god the snake wrapped around a tree or pole representing the tree of life.



The original Creation epic makes it quite clear what is at the bottom of this story -  (half) brotherly rivalry. And this rivalry is a  continued theme  throughout  the whole bible:  (half) brotherly rivalry between  Cain and his half brother Able. It is a theme that is continued -  in my opinion - right up to our modern era. Which I hope to prove in another thread on this very subject.
#32
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret

What lie is there? 
That A&E knew right from wrong, that's the reason you have avoided supplying a passage that supports your claim.
Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason
Most especially when death didn't exist. How frightened are you of being cripsterneened? It's as meaningless a word as death was before death existed.
She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam. 
That's not possible, they were never taught right from wrong, obedience from disobedience. Obedience meant as much as death did and that was NOTHING.
It is a more plausible explanation than thinking - gee she did not know it was wrong and had to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree to figure it out. Which is what your want to imply. But that is not possible - is highly implausible and not probable. 

The entire story has no plausibility, you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility. The story says that A&E new right from wrong after eating the fruit. Try reading the story not writing it.
Topic's author
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility.
They do, and so do others here.  They will ask a question such as " do you think that god is so stupid to not notice the contradiction in his own words"?
Then they will, in the very next breath, insist that what is actually written means something else entirely. 
Tradesecret for instance, will have it that when god wrote the word "touch" , what he actually meant was any  number of things including "light". he then point blank tried to change the verse completely, here:

Tradesecret  "note however, Jesus never said to Mary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me".the word in the greek is the word hapto.  It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or  light. 
.

   This is what the verse actually says:>                                                                                                                 
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: John 20:17 KJV
This BLATANT! misleading and purposeful mistranslation of the GOSPEL text is something devout Christians do when they have painted themselves tightly into a corner and challenged.
 And this is what any serious studier of these scriptures will find themselves up against. Liars and backsliders.

But then what is one to expect when their own leader instructs them to be two faced:>
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV) be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Notice this man god actually instructs them to be WISE like the Serpent. This would be the same serpent that is said to have "deceived" brainless eve", I take it.

#34
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@Stephen

To begin with, just the name of this deadly life threatening tree puzzles me. Good and evil:  The reader is introduced to two trees specifically: 
Genesis 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
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.
 
Why Wouldn’t the lord not want us to “eat from” this tree that not only held knowledge of evil, but also of good?  Why Doesn’t this lord want us to know good?

Why was this tree created in such a way that it held knowledge of both evil and good?Why not simply two separate trees: one good, one bad? 
 



 
you are missing the point YHVH COMMANDED them not to eat from that tree. HIS COMMAND by not following HIS COMMAND from 'that day' they are to know they will die. read gen 2:17 again. its not about the fruit itself. it is about disobeying HIS COMMAND they will learn they are to die.

the serpent is a meaning of satans deceiving. for a snake has eyes like man yet is it tongue has 2 meanings which means by not telling the whole truth that being is deceiving Eve.


#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Yes Stephen, it was wrong of me to suggest you were following Satan. I apologise - it was uncalled for. 

I am not arguing over the semantics of the word "touch". 

Here, God never used the term at all. He said, don't eat it. Eve added the words touch. Now it is true that it is impossible to eat without touching - but on the other hand it is quite possible to touch and do other things with - without eating. I often used to throw apples at people like balls for example. And sometimes I would pick a fruit, feel it in my hand, look at it, and then put it down again. 

My point is that Eve added even the pharisaical addition because she already knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - and like the Pharisees attempted to make it even more difficult to break the law. In any event, God issued a command - it was an imperative - not just a suggestion. To break the law was to do wrong. Even knew this and so did Adam. Satan did as well - but his entire point was to tempt them away from listening to and obeying the words of God. 

I'm discussing the story as related in Genesis. I don't really have anything to say about any other story. If you want to go to Enlil et al., then start a new topic discussing that story. 

At this point in time, you have not established that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. Your premise is not only weak, it is non existent. 
#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
disgusted, 

Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God by eating this fruit. God clearly say in 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". 

This was not a suggestion, it was a command. even the consequence of eating it is given. 

You suggest that eating the fruit gave them knowledge of right and wrong. but that is clearly incorrect. How do we know? Simple, because the first thing they did after their eyes were opened was to notice that he was naked and needed to hide. If the eating of the fruit was giving them knowledge to know what right and wrong was, then this would not have been an issue for God already knew that they were naked and declared it was very good. In other words, it was right to be naked and not ashamed.

So if being naked was right and not wrong, then Adam receiving the ability to know right from wrong makes no sense for he immediately gets it wrong. On the other hand, if the interpretation of what I have suggested which is in line with the traditions of the church is correct, which is that by eating the fruit, he is declaring what good and bad is, then it is very plausible that his very first act of wisdom - could be in contradiction what has been declared good before that time. 

This is what made Adam and Eve like God. Interestingly, Satan suggested that to be like God was something they could do by eating this fruit. And in one sense Satan was correct, and this is clarified by God. But how exactly were they to be like God? It was not about power or immortality. In fact it was not even about knowing right and wrong. the Bible has always been clear that it is God who determines what is right and what is evil. humanity hates this. humanity likes to think that God has got it wrong - and hates to think that God is the one who makes the rules. Satan hates this too and this is what he tempted Adam and Eve to do. To eat the fruit would not give them the ability to know right from wrong, but to decide what is right and what is wrong. This is the most plausible explanation of this passage. They had rejected life and chose death.

Other verses which support this in the OT, include the fact that humanity was made in the image of God with the moral ability to discern right from wrong because they have the law of God written on their hearts. Romans 1 also follows this thinking. 







#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Goldtop

Yes, that is very childish and immature, adults don't represent things that way. If they did, it would be to a five year old. Perhaps, that's for who the Bible was written?

Adults represent things in metaphors and symbols all of the time. It was not childish in this instance - and you really don't have reasons to think that - except you don't like it. 

Nakedness in a forest? I would not know. perhaps you could enlighten us?
You don't know? You've never been in a forest? Seriously? Go and spend time in a forest naked and you will very quickly understand how badly you need clothes. Clearly, Adam understood this but God didn't. God is a dummy.

I certainly have never spent time in a forest naked. That I suppose is my loss. but as to whether it was clever or not clever - the thing is at that time there were no thorns - so perhaps it would have been nice. Still … 

Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness
Ah, so God is happiest when we don't use our brains, Gotcha. That would stand to reason if God was an imbecile who hated smarter people.

what a facile thing to say. I said God does not get jealous over humanities wisdom and you still turn it in a nasty way. God wants us to use our brains. He says "come and reason with me". He says be transformed in your thinking. He says - have an answer for the reason for the hope that is in you. when people apply the scriptures it comes through the mind. 

The point is - you want to eat the fruit to be able to decide what is right and wrong for yourself - and you don't like the idea that your wisdom without God is really quite foolish. You want God to turn around and think how smart you are - and congratulate you. And the funniest thing about this is you don't even believe in God. How wise is it to continually be talking about discussing something you don't even believe in? Something you think is  a myth. 
#38
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
--> @Tradesecret

What lie is there? 
That A&E knew right from wrong, that's the reason you have avoided supplying a passage that supports your claim.

I have provided the verse - you just refuse to consider its truth. God said "you must not eat the fruit from that tree". This is a command - an imperative. It is not a suggestion. You don't like the idea that they already knew right from wrong. I wonder why that is such a big thing for you grasp hold to.  when God said "don't … or you will die", we know that it would be wrong to do it. 
Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason
Most especially when death didn't exist. How frightened are you of being cripsterneened? It's as meaningless a word as death was before death existed.

Who said death did not exist? It may well be true that no human had died at this time. But this does not mean that other creatures did not die in that time period. It would be pointless for God to use a term unless it had meaning to Eve and to Adam. Even they use it themselves. It is bizarre that you are hanging onto this element so strongly, without any evidence to support what you are saying and with plenty disagreeing with you. 
She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam. 
That's not possible, they were never taught right from wrong, obedience from disobedience. Obedience meant as much as death did and that was NOTHING.

You don't have evidence to support this.  You are basing this completely on a definition that is not even warranted. And I wonder why? Is it because you have to find God to a liar? What would be the point of God issuing a command if they did not know what a command is? You seem to rely heavily on the words of Satan and minimise the words of God. 
It is a more plausible explanation than thinking - gee she did not know it was wrong and had to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree to figure it out. Which is what your want to imply. But that is not possible - is highly implausible and not probable. 

The entire story has no plausibility, you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility. The story says that A&E new right from wrong after eating the fruit. Try reading the story not writing it.

I am not rewriting history. My interpretation is well known and has a long history. Your interpretation on the other hand is modern. this interpretation has plausibility and yours just does not make sense. 

#39
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility.
They do, and so do others here.  They will ask a question such as " do you think that god is so stupid to not notice the contradiction in his own words"?
Then they will, in the very next breath, insist that what is actually written means something else entirely. 
Tradesecret for instance, will have it that when god wrote the word "touch" , what he actually meant was any  number of things including "light". he then point blank tried to change the verse completely, here:

Tradesecret  "note however, Jesus never said to Mary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me".the word in the greek is the word hapto.  It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or  light. 
.

   This is what the verse actually says:>                                                                                                                 
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: John 20:17 KJV
This BLATANT! misleading and purposeful mistranslation of the GOSPEL text is something devout Christians do when they have painted themselves tightly into a corner and challenged.
 And this is what any serious studier of these scriptures will find themselves up against. Liars and backsliders.

But then what is one to expect when their own leader instructs them to be two faced:>
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV) be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Notice this man god actually instructs them to be WISE like the Serpent. This would be the same serpent that is said to have "deceived" brainless eve", I take it.


It really gets up your goat doesn't? That there are people who disagree with you and have good reasons and explanations for what they think. It is sad that your eyes really are closed to the truth. Still, I will pray for you. God may have mercy on you. 
Topic's author
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm discussing the story as related in Genesis.I don't really have anything to say about any other story. If you want to go toEnail et al., then start a new topic discussing that story. 
This is my thread and I will take it where  I like. Besides, they are the same story only one is more clear and detailed than the half story we get from the bible.  Which is a point that you have ignored entirely. It is a fact that  both these creation stories are speaking of the same lords.
 
 
At this point in time, you have not established that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. Your premise is not only weak, it is non existent. 
 
 
 You Really are ignorant at times.(or pretend to be) It is there PLAIN AS DAY to read.
You’retrying to deny what is actually written AGAIN!. It is only after they eat from forbidden tree of knowledge that their eyes are open to good and evil i.e.right and wrong.

You need to get those  five years olds that you are so proud of to explain this to you.
                               
Evil =wrong.
Good =right.
Gen3:5  "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil."
                         
                                                ^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6^^       AND NOTBEFORE!!!!
                      
 
One of these gods simply wanted us to remain in a state of ignorance. Whereas the benevolent  and WISE  Serpent god wanted our eyes to be open. The Serpent  Lord  does get a lot of praise in the bible. Jesus himself though highly of them didn't he. Eve did not die and neither did Adam. 
 
 
 
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV) be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
 
Genesis 3: 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the eastside of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
 
 
 Why did this lord only expel the man from "paradise"?
 
 
 
 
 
 

Topic's author
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
It really gets up your goat doesn't?

You cannot even get a simple English Idiom correct. But want us to accept YOUR interpretation of these ancient scriptures that are absolutely THOUSANDS of years old and gone through many interpretations and  translations.
Learn English: the phrase is    Get my goat   Or Get up my nose.


That there are people who disagree with you and have good reasons and explanations for what they think.

That is just it. None are "good reasons and explanations", they are your interpretations of ancient scriptures. You say simply words mean something else entirely. because you cannot explain these things away without doing to. It is alway those who question who are the ones to have  "misunderstood"  as far as you are concerned. You could and never would, admit that you just may have the whole thing wrong. 


It is sad that your eyes really are closed to the truth.

Your truth is not necessarily my truth.



Still, I will pray for you.

Kind of you. thank you. Why didn't anyone pray for Judas or Satan?

God may have mercy on you. 
He won't and neither will he on you.


#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Ok it is your thread - you take it where you want. I don't have to go there though and I wont because it is irrelevant to me. As for facts, I think you are over-reaching again. 

What is plain as day is that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You simply ignore this or suggest that this command somehow is a suggestion because Adam and Eve could not possibly know it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. It is not me misreading the passage. 

It is you who is reading into the passage an interpretation that fits your pre-conceived prejudices. The likely reason you are re-interpreting the command from God to be a suggestion is because it contradicts completely your pre-conceived prejudice that the tree of knowledge of good and evil made them able to discern the difference. The fact that they know it is wrong already makes it impossible for you to follow your logic that God has stopped them from knowing wisdom. 

Your interpretation does not however give any reason for Eve's discussion and attempted rebuttal with the serpent. Nor does it give any explanation for why Adam and Eve were suddenly aware of their nakedness, to the point that they needed to be clothed. Even if God's command not to obey is seen as a suggestion and even if Adam and Eve were unable to discern good and evil, they were not totally devoid of knowledge. Eve spoke as did Adam. Adam in fact was naming animals and tending to the garden. How in the world then does suddenly being aware that you were naked - which is something they obviously already knew - become a moral concern? This you cannot explain satisfactorily. 

Nor do you explain how knowing the difference between good and evil is godlike. I reject it as a concept. It is nothing ever explored at any point in the bible. God wanted his creatures to obey him. Satan knew the difference between right and wrong. Gee even animals do to an extent and can feel guilt over it. But how does knowing the difference between good and evil be a picture or a description of divinity? I can think of no mythology which takes this position - I can think of no religion which takes this position. I can think of no philosophy or worldview that takes this position. And the reason for this is clear. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is not something that belongs to the realm of divinity exclusively. 

Yet, deciding what is right and what is wrong is clearly a divine prerogative. And this is why it is much more plausible that this story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the symbolic picture of humanity trying to usurp this divine prerogative and why God says "now they have become like us". 

Adam and Eve were made moral beings when God made them after his own image. They already had the law of God written on their hearts so that they would be without excuse.  Your interpretation makes them out to be nothing more than animals who can talk. Perhaps, that is all you see here. Hence, these moral beings decided that to be human was not good enough - they wanted to be divine. This was a moral decision they made - knowing full well that such a decision would give them death. As the verse states, you will surely die, although in Hebrew it says "Dying you will die."   
You will immediately be cut off - become dead to God's family, by being cast out of his presence and then because you are cut off from the tree of life, you will die physically. and lo and behold this is what happened. Not having access to the tree of life, Adam and Eve die. As the doctrines of the church have articulated, humanity fell out of their relationship with God and then inevitably died. They inherited death rather than life. And so from Adam forward death reigned. Until the second Adam came and provided access to the tree of life. 



#43
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Adults represent things in metaphors and symbols all of the time.
Like adults, not like children.

except you don't like it. 
That's the usual lame excuse believers use when they don't want to hear their beliefs criticized. So childish.

- the thing is at that time there were no thorns
LOL. Hilarious.

God wants us to use our brains. He says "come and reason with me".
Wrong on both counts.God wants mindless automatons worshiping and obeying him., you know, like most despots and dictators.

The point is - you want to eat the fruit to be able to decide what is right and wrong for yourself
Yes, that was adults do. Perhaps, you need to grow up.

Topic's author
#44
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 Most of your post at 42 above is nothing short of a rambling rant full of nothing but opinion, YOUR opinion, of why you think god did one thing or another.  So, from here :
 
 
I won't because it is irrelevant to me. As for facts,I think you are over-reaching again. 
 
 Indeed Stone cold fact are also irrelevant to you. The evidence for these two creation accounts being the same story is overwhelming.
 
One Example is, the spouse of the creator couple was given the title, the Lady Of All  Life   by her husband the Serpent Lord Enki. AND BEHOLD! just look at what the bible says some 20,000 years after :
 
“And Adam Called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living”. Genesis 3:20.
 
You've Obviously read absolutely nothing outside of the bible. There is beyond doubt a much better and a more informative and more accurate and clearer explanation to this Tree of Knowledge story than the half flawed story the bible tells. 
 
What is plain as day is that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You simply ignore this or suggest that this command somehow is a suggestion because Adam and Eve could not possibly know it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. 
 
I am suggesting exactly what the scripture says, that is , once this brand newLY created  couple had eaten from the tree of knowledge, “their eyes were opened” to what was good and what was bad. I am simply asking why it was that this god didn’t want us to be knowledgeable and would rather that we remain in ignorance?You seem to believe this is not the case. I don’t agree. Get over it.
 
It is not me misreading the passage. 
Yes, that old' chestnut, I don't know how to interpret the bible SB!

It's Always the one questioning that is “misunderstanding” and or “misreading”,isn’t it? Have you ever once considered it just may be your indoctrinated self that might be the one that is “misreading” these thousands of years old ancient texts?  You remind me of the hapless individual who just cannot seem to get anything right yet will not look at himself as to where the fault may lay,he simply has to blame everyone else for his own mistakes.
 
Your Interpretation 
you are re-interpreting
Your Interpretation
 
Yes of course, it is -  mine mine mine -  and never once -yours yours yours- that just may happen to be at fault. Heard it all before. I am telling you  that you are wrong. You adding to the story with your own interpretation of what you think god means and what you think gods reasons were for doing such a cruel thing and by ignoring the glaring facts of the story, is toyour own detriment my son.
 
the thing is at that time there were no thorns
 
Leaving aside  "crown of thorns" then. and some seeds didn’t falling on "thorny ground"
There are over 50 verses in the bible that speak specifically of thorns.  BUT YOU ARE INSISTING THERE WERE NO THORNS IN THOSE DAYS, SO YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE BIBLE IS WRONG THEN.


Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.  GENESIS 3:18 

'But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live. NUMBERS 33:55


"For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nationsout from before you; but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. JOSHUA 23;12 - 13

 
I am beginning to think that you haven’t even read the bible never mind any extra-biblical literary material. 

Genesis 3: 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the eastside of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
 
 You Haven’t even attempted to explain why only the man was expelled from the paradisiacal garden?
 
 

#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen, 

thanks again for your reply. I am glad I have not scared you away. 

I am puzzled as to why you found my post rambling. Others I have shown it to were also surprised by your response. All of them made the same observation as I did. You failed to engage with my questions and did not answer but chose rather to attack me. I hope this is not how you intend to conduct yourself in the future as it does not demonstrate that you are prepared to show an objective look at positions other than your own. 

My opinion is based upon a close reading of the text. This is confirmed by others who also have proper qualifications to make such an assessment. By your response it seems clear, that you value your opinion higher than others. That is fine. You go for it. It does not change the facts nor how academics from all walks of life perceive it. 

As for seeing other books as irrelevant, that does not mean I don't read widely, nor that they don't hold helpful information. What it meant in this particular situation is that I hold to the sola scriptura position - Scripture interprets Scripture. This principle of interpretation is valid and whether you agree or not is again irrelevant. Even if I chose to read your other material - which you rely upon … "the Lady Of All  Life" is not identical to  "mother of all living".    Is there a possible connection? Perhaps. But if we were to use your own interpretational method that you are relying upon here, they are nothing alike and obviously unrelated. If you are going to use the word "touch" as translated in whatever bible you use - and not rely upon the greek text which I did, then the two statements are only similar but nothing more. 


Your suggestion that I simply say you are misinterpreting the text and that I simply could not see it your ways is obviously a lie. I, actually, indicated that even if your interpretation was true - it was impossible given the text. This is taking your own interpretation and attempting to give it the benefit of the doubt to see if actually could give sustenance to your meaning. I notice you are the one who did not return the good will but chose rather to lie and say that I am simply saying you are wrong and I am right. Attacking me is not attacking the arguments I made which you continue to avoid and run from. 

Even your reference to thorns is evidence of your character and preparedness to fabricate untruths. in the first instance I was talking to another poster and made no reference to thorns to you. In the second instance I was referring to the particular time - just post fall when Adam made the comment about nakedness and before God had cursed the ground. I was not saying there were no thorns in Jesus' time or at any other time in the scriptures. Your pathetic attempt to paint me as not having read the bible reveals how weak your arguments are. 

My point has been and remains the same. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He made this as a command to moral beings. You have not engaged with this point at all. It seems to me that non-engagement concedes it validity. 

As for the point about the man only being driven out of the garden, I did not know it was an important point - and still don't. Nevertheless, I don't have an answer. It is the case though, that both Adam and Eve were outside the garden. It may be related to Paul's point in the NT that females ought to wear a head covering because Eve's part in the fall was less intentional than Adam's. She was reckless, yet his part was intentional and therefore more serious. 







Topic's author
#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@eash
The Serpent is a meaning of satans deceiving. for a snake has eyes like man yet isit tongue has 2 meanings which means by not telling the whole truth that being is deceiving Eve.

Nope. A  satanis simply one who accuses or opposes in the original Hebrew literature.
If we look at two different bibles using the exact verses and their translations they actually reveal what “a” Satan really is and its role. . 
 
Psalm 109:6
King James Version (KJV)
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand”.
 
 
Psalm 109:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;
    let accuser stand at his right hand”. 

Satan as an imperialist leader of demon hordes and challenging the authority of god for rulership over the Earth is purely a Christian Invention.

The Old Testament Refers rarely to these so called “satans” they are simply portrayed as obedient servants or sons of gods (plural) ( the bene- ha-eloheim) who perform specific instruction of obstruction. Nowhere in the Genesis Story is there even mention, direct or indirect of Satan’s involvement in the Tree of Knowledge story.

When “A” Satan does appear in the OT,it is usually as a member of the heavenly court and one who carries out God's dictates.
 
God sent one as a bet to torment Job TWICE! This particular satan by all account had said to god, I have been walking around the earth. God asks “did you see my servant  Job? He’s A good man and fears his god”. Satan replies “do you think he fears you for no reason? Or is it because you have threatened to take everything away from him if he doesn’t do your bidding” etc etc . God then sends this Satan to destroy everything that the sinless God fearing Job had ever owned and worked hard for, including his CHILDREN! But with strict instructions not to harm Job himself.

Job 1:12-20.  And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.
13 And there was a day when his son and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
15 And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword;and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
16 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
17 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped....
If that wasn’t enough, god again sent satan on yet another betting mission , this time to give Job  scabs and boils. Job 2:1-7.

So it seems that god uses these opposers/accusers as adversaries to do his dirty work.Murdering children for a bet to prove a point. Deary me how low can one get?
 
Indeed King David himself is referred to as a satan (adversary) in the book of 1  Samuel 29:4.
Numbers tells of an adversary (satan) sent by god to stand in the way against Ballaam. 22:22


 
You really need to study more.

Topic's author
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
 God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He made this as a command to moral beings. You have not engaged with this point at all. It seems to me that non-engagement concedes it validity. 
 
I have addressed it and have said three or four times now, this scripture clearly states their eyes were opened after the fact and not before.
As for the point about the man only being driven out of the garden, I did not know it was an important point - and still don't. 
 
That is a response not an answer.
 I don't have an answer. 
I agree, but what is it you say in these cases of none answers? Lets see:
 
You have not engaged with this point at all. It seems to me that non-engagement concedes it validity. 
 
This god wanted us to live in servitude and ignorance these are facts. This god was totally opposed to man having his "eyes opened". To not have one's eyes open is to to be in darkness not the light. These are cold facts you just do not want to face.

"the Lady Of All  Life" is not identical to  "mother of all living".    Is there a possible connection? Perhaps.
It is,  and there are many more where that came from.
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Sorry Stephen but you have not addressed my point at all. In fact you continue to go to verses after the fact and try and suggest it has something to do with the prior. What a load of nonsense and you know it. Do you agree God issued a command or not? At least answer that one. 

As for the man being driven out of the garden, would you care to at least address why you think it is important because it remains a mystery to me. As I said, I don't know the answer to the question. I can speculate as I did above. I could say - other things such as man and woman had become one in marriage - but that does not seem probable in the circumstance. I could say that God had used the generic term for humanity - "the man" (After all the Hebrew term Adam means man), but this seems a little trite from my point of view. I could say it was because the woman had no rights - but this is inconsistent. So I really don't know the answer. but I am sure you have a brilliant answer - probably taken from one of those other books you are referring to.  As I see it, both Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to this time and afterwards they were both out in the world. I suspect it was probably to do with the fact that Adam was the representative of humanity including Eve, and that as such whatever happened to him, happened by virtue of his representative of all humanity. This is consistent with the theology of breaching the covenant of works which is what eating the fruit did and for which they were translated from life to death by way of covenant. 

I totally agree that God did not want humanity to die by eating from the fruit which he commanded them not to eat. I totally agree that God wanted them to remain faithful to him and to obtain eternal life. The tree of life gives eternal life, not life per se. They were already alive without eating from that tree. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought death because it is a tree which opened their eyes to deciding for themselves what good and evil was. You still have not addressed why they thought nakedness was bad when it had been declared good by God. You have not explained how this "opening of their eyes" actually gave them knowledge. If you are correct and they now knew good from evil, then this opening of their eyes would surely let them know that God had already declared it good before hand. But what happens is not such a revealing of knowledge, they actually change what was good and now think it is so bad they have to hide it. This is one reason why your view does not make sense. 

If it was true that they now became moral creatures, and they now knew the difference between good and evil when before they did not know it, then things which were good, they would know and things which were bad or evil, they would know. Hence, they would now know that nakedness was good, but they did not. They would now know that God had commanded them not to eat from that tree and accept the consequences of it. But this is not what happened. 

What is your explanation? I find your answers presently weak and pathetic and inconsistent. I am at least attempting to follow your logic but it just does not work. 

Topic's author
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you saying that this ignorant couple knew right from wrong before the act of defiance? Yes or No?
#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You are the one who keeps calling them ignorant, not me. If they were ignorant until they suddenly knew right from wrong why did they not apply this new found wisdom and do the right thing. The right thing to do after realising you have done the wrong thing is to go the one you have wronged and say sorry. But Adam and Eve went and hid - in the garden and then blamed shifted their responsibility. Adam blamed Eve and God. Eve blamed the snake. 

It seems to me that rather than suddenly having wisdom, every thing they did after they ate the fruit got dumber and dumber. 

But nice diversion away from my question to you. 

My answer to your question is yes, qualified by deleting your adjective "ignorant". They, and especially Adam, wilfully knew he was acting in defiance of God. Now would you be so kind as to answer whether you think God issued a command or not? 
#51
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Is right good and wrong evil?
#52
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
That is a good question. 

I have used these terms interchangeably here at times, but I do see a distinction between them as well.  but it depends upon the context and upon what is going on at the same time. 

A poor decision is not necessarily an evil decision.  Sometimes things which are "not good" are not evil.  For example even in this story, God had made everything in the creation and declared it good. He noted that Adam was alone and this was "not good". He created Eve and then things became very good.  But Adam being alone was "not good", but it was not evil.  Nevertheless, God remedied it. 

So I think that sometimes the words can be used interchangeably, but this does not mean that every usage will be the same. 

I think all evil things are wrong. And all good things are right. But I don't think every non good thing is evil. 

Topic's author
#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It seems to me that rather than suddenly having wisdom, every thing they did after they ate the fruit got dumber and dumber.

Then you are completely denying what the gods (plural)themselves have said aren't you.


 Do you agree God issued a command or not? At least answer that one. 
That is what the text suggests. Yes

As for the man being driven out of the garden, would you care to at least address why you think it is important because it remains a mystery to me
You are attempting to answer a question with a question ...AGAIN.  It is in the bible, it has to mean something. It is also clear the woman wasn’t driven out. There is absolutely nothing that indicates a reason why the woman was not expelled; the bible is totally silent on the matter. You can make all the surmises and speculations you like, but you simply cannot make up a story of your own to explain away this very bias act of this so called ‘loving’ god.


AND you are ignoring the fact that this dictate was to the woman only and not the man.

This couple didn’t even understand the meaning of “ nakedness” this we know by the fact this Lord had to asked them “ who told you were naked”.

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
Strange that this all seeing all hearing lord had to call to Adam asking where he was.
 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
The tree of life gives eternal life, not life per se.
Opinion and or guesswork. But you are forgetting this little problem aren’t you?
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


“Guarding the way to the tree of Life”.<<<<<< It is noticed this loving Lord didn’t put a flaming guard around the problematic tree of knowledge and save himself a big problem.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought death because it is a tree which opened their eyes to deciding for themselves what good and evil was.
Yes, and this Lord didn’t want our “eyes to be opened did he” I keep telling you, this lord wanted us to remain in a state of servitude and ignorance. Like I have pointed out, they even (according to this Lord) had to be told they were naked. he calls all people his "SERVANTS"

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked?


You have not explained how this "opening of their eyes" actually gave them knowledge.

And neither does the bible, so that is for you to explain away sunshine. But let me remind you of something:  the “gods” plural had this to say just after the act of defiance:

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”
So there it is, we suddenly became wise like them.

This^^^^^^ is the most interesting part of the whole saga as far as I am concerned.
So, it is there plain as day that WE ARE “LIKE THE GODS”. I.e we are as good or as bad as the gods themselves.


 I find your answers presently weak and pathetic and inconsistent.
Yes I know you do. But what else can you possibly say? I hardly expected you to agree with anything I say.  You simply do not like me highlighting parts of these scriptures that simply do not ring true.



You are struggling to explain away any part of this nonsense. It is nonsense simply because it has come down to us after thousands of years and many translations and misunderstanding and rewriting. And you are left holding the baby.

My answer to your question is yes, qualified by deleting your adjective "ignorant".
Even  if we take this story literally the had to be told that they were naked?

But nice diversion away from my question to you.
Nope I have a reason for asking you my  question at that particular juncture, I addressed your question. see above 4th line down.


#54
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@Stephen
The Old Testament Refers rarely to these so called “satans” they are simply portrayed as obedient servants or sons of gods (plural) ( the bene- ha-eloheim) who perform specific instruction of obstruction. Nowhere in the Genesis Story is there even mention, direct or indirect of Satan’s involvement in the Tree of Knowledge story.



// YV Said to the 'serpent/satan' gen 3:14&15.  how does YV Curse a none being? for there were many kinds of snakes all ready lower than the cattle?
  how can a snake think and talk and know YV'S COMMAND to Adam?


i do study the text in the bible. i can say i study for the average of 2 1/2 hrs a day, 7 days a week for the last 29 years. i am the first person in history to own the copyrights to the bible and i am regestored in the libarary of congress for the old testament and own many copyrights to the 4 gospels.

#55
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@disgusted
Is right good and wrong evil?


// your missing the point that they disobeyed YHVH not to eat it. for eating it then they will die.
did this fruit give the knowledge of right good and wrong evil. yes, 2 ways. the 1st they learned disbeying YHVH was wrong and evil. and the obey YHVH is the righteousness for the doing good.
#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

It seems to me that rather than suddenly having wisdom, every thing they did after they ate the fruit got dumber and dumber.
Then you are completely denying what the gods (plural)themselves have said aren't you.

No, God said, they have become like us. I have suggested that this is most plausibly explained by the fact that the humans now determine for themselves right and wrong as opposed God.  Your suggestion seems to be (or at least correct me if I am incorrect) that humans have now become moral beings in the sense that they can distinguish between right and wrong. You are certainly not suggesting that humans now are omniscient or omnipotent or have the power of salvation. What plausible reason is there for God to lock out the humans from the tree of life because they have now become moral beings? I say that since in the rest of the Bible, God is always expecting that humanity ought to obey him and stop living in the way that they want to because their way leads to death best fits with my position. He wants them to be moral. He desires them to be holy. I certainly do not see anywhere, (perhaps you might provide some verses which support your view) where God gets frustrated because humanity knows the difference between good and evil.  God often makes the point that the so called wisdom of humanity is a problem and that it is contrasted with the wisdom of God. 

As for the man being driven out of the garden, would you care to at least address why you think it is important because it remains a mystery to me
You are attempting to answer a question with a question ...AGAIN.  It is in the bible, it has to mean something. It is also clear the woman wasn’t driven out. There is absolutely nothing that indicates a reason why the woman was not expelled; the bible is totally silent on the matter. You can make all the surmises and speculations you like, but you simply cannot make up a story of your own to explain away this very bias act of this so called ‘loving’ god.

I am not sure asking questions is a bad thing. Do you think I should stop asking questions and JUST believe you? I have not seen anyone distinguish between the man and the woman being driven out of the garden. Hence, why I am asking for clarification. I don't see it as biased. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I see Adam as the head of humanity and representative. What happened to him, all in him receive. As Paul says later, in Adam, all sinned and death reigned. Give I take the view that Adam is essentially the king, or the president, or the head of humanity at this time, it seems quite reasonable that God would address him and her through him. When the General Secretary of the UN addresses me, he does it through the PM, this is not biased against me. It simply acknowledges that the PM represents me (and this is despite the fact I did not vote for him). I have already previously discussed covenantal death - my position sits very comfortable with this understanding of it. 

AND you are ignoring the fact that this dictate was to the woman only and not the man.

Which dictate to the woman? I really have no idea what dictate you are talking about. 

This couple didn’t even understand the meaning of “ nakedness” this we know by the fact this Lord had to asked them “ who told you were naked”.

You miss my point completely. The point is - it does not matter whether Adam or Eve knew what nakedness was before they ate the fruit. Your position seems to be suggesting that eating the fruit gave them knowledge to know the difference between good and evil. Hence, whether they knew about it or not is irrelevant. It is how they responded to their nakedness at the time after they ate the fruit. Surely whatever was good before hand, remains good, all that they fruit does in your view is give them the knowledge of this.  And whatever was evil, remains evil, this is the thrust of what your view is suggesting.  Yet, they don't respond with "oh we are naked how good this is - they say oh we are naked we had better hide." Surely even you can see this? 


#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

“Guarding the way to the tree of Life”.<<<<<< It is noticed this loving Lord didn’t put a flaming guard around the problematic tree of knowledge and save himself a big problem.

Again I am not sure of the problem. Prior to humanity eating from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life was not guarded. Adam and Eve could have gone to that tree for a start, but chose death instead. God expressly told them that they would die - and if he gave them life as well as death - then not only is this a real contradiction but it makes him out to be liar. 

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought death because it is a tree which opened their eyes to deciding for themselves what good and evil was.
Yes, and this Lord didn’t want our “eyes to be opened did he” I keep telling you, this lord wanted us to remain in a state of servitude and ignorance. Like I have pointed out, they even (according to this Lord) had to be told they were naked. he calls all people his "SERVANTS"

Humanity wanted to be like God, that is clear. They knew their choice and they knew the consequences. Whinging about it after the fact is just sour grapes. As for being his servant, that is something I am proud of. Yet, we are not just his servants or his slaves as Paul puts it, but we have been adopted as children into his family. This is what Adam and Eve failed to understand and why Jesus came to fulfill. 

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked?

You have not explained how this "opening of their eyes" actually gave them knowledge.
And neither does the bible, so that is for you to explain away sunshine. But let me remind you of something:  the “gods” plural had this to say just after the act of defiance:

Actually it is your assertion.  I have provided a plausible answer and one which has been part of Christian doctrine since the beginning. You are asserting some new and which is clearly not as plausible as you make it out to be. 

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”
So there it is, we suddenly became wise like them. This^^^^^^ is the most interesting part of the whole saga as far as I am concerned.So, it is there plain as day that WE ARE “LIKE THE GODS”. I.e we are as good or as bad as the gods themselves.
Actually God is not bad. He is good. Perfect in every way and holy. As I have indicated it is your assertion, therefore it is for your not just say what you think is possible, but plausible as well. I have also provided a response which is consistent with the rest of Scripture. 

yes I know you do. But what else can you possibly say? I hardly expected you to agree with anything I say.  You simply do not like me highlighting parts of these scriptures that simply do not ring true.
I made these statements as explained. Your arguments - are weak. They are pathetic. They are inconsistent. You have failed to use any of ordinary tools that experts use in this area. You have not looked at the underlying language. You have not looked at the context. You have not looked at the overall message of the bible. You have done as so many fundamentalists do - look at the language in a 2 dimensional fashion and then shut your ears to anything else. I actually welcome discussions in relation to so called discrepancies in the bible. I have nothing to hide from. 

You are struggling to explain away any part of this nonsense. It is nonsense simply because it has come down to us after thousands of years and many translations and misunderstanding and rewriting. And you are left holding the baby.

I have not struggled to answer or explain any of the passage we have looked at. In fact as I look back it is you who delayed in answering key questions and then failed to address some of the other matters put back to you. When I provide a plausible explanation - you just quote a verse and expect that somehow answers my question. It is like talking to a Mormon or a JW or a fundamentalist Baptist.  

My answer to your question is yes, qualified by deleting your adjective "ignorant".
Even  if we take this story literally the had to be told that they were naked?
Even this is incorrect? Who told them they were naked?  
Nope I have a reason for asking you my  question at that particular juncture, I addressed your question. see above 4th line down.
I am sure you did. How about explaining why? 

#58
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@eash

your missing the point that they disobeyed YHVH
You can't deliberately disobey if you haven't been taught the difference between obedience and disobedience. You aren't born with an innate sense of obedience you must be taught it and A&E were never taught it. The all knowing god didn't know that obedience wasn't an automatic reaction to a command especially when it's accompanied by a meaningless threat, ie death, which wouldn't enter the world until Adams minor indiscretion.
Topic's author
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You are the one whokeeps calling them ignorant, not me
Indeed, and is well withincontext of the story concerning their lack of  knowledge prior to the death threat , is it not?
Lets see:

ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt
adjective
1.     1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
 
Which explains why it was only AFTER the act of defiance that their eyes were opened.
 


#60
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You are the one whokeeps calling them ignorant, not me
Indeed, and is well withincontext of the story concerning their lack of  knowledge prior to the death threat , is it not?
Lets see:

ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt
adjective
1.     1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
 
Which explains why it was only AFTER the act of defiance that their eyes were opened.
 

You have not proved they were ignorant. You keep asserting it. God issued a command to them. Surely you do not say they were ignorant of this command and what would happen if they chose to ignore it? If they were ignorant, how could they possibly enter into a dialogue with anyone about the rights or wrongs of it? They were not animals. They were created in the image of God which includes his moral aspect. They knew right from wrong. You ignore this and deliberately distort the story because it does not fit your pre-conceived interpretation of God. The rest of Scripture - in fact I say all of Scripture fits the position I have put. Your interpretation fits only with another book you have read which you opine believe is similar. It might fit with that one - but it does not correspond the context here.