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

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

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?
 
 
 
And Although it was of this forbidden tree that they ate from and  eventually  were sentenced to die; the Tree of Life didn’t lose any immediate problem.
But the noticeable thing here is that once this couple had “eaten” from said tree they become wise. They had had their eyes opened by a so called “serpent” or mores thecase, on the face of it, a much wiser honest god that the one who said they would die. 
I am reminded here that Jesus talks somewhat admirably about serpents being wise and instructs his disciples to imitate them:

Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV)
 Behold,I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

It appears then that this Lord of Genesis wanted us only to know what he wanted us know, and not a thing more: kept in the dark and ignorant.
 
It seems the wise ole’ snake had done mankind a great big favour.

Topic's author
#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

How is this Genesis serpent  equated with a satan or a devil or a demon ?

It seems that, for us to explain away these glaring and obvious question at post (1) we have to learn about a mythical character that was solely created by Christians And the Christian Church, or mores the case the Roman Church itself.

In the Hebrew Bible and mainstream Judaism to this day, “Satan” doesn’t even appear as Western Christianity has portrayed him. Satan as Christians refer to him is a character that only appears in the post Jesus era.

In the Old Testament, ‘satans’ are rarely mentioned and  are simply portrayed as obedient servants or sons of gods (plural) ( the bene- ha- eloheim) who perform specific instruction of obstruction.  A root definition comes from the vowel-less Hebrew STN and is simply means oppose, adversary or accuser,the Greek equivalent was -   diabolos –and relates to obstructer or slanderer.
 
If we look at two bibles and their translations we will have an idea what “a” Satan is .

Psalm109:6
KingJames Version (KJV)
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand”.


Psalm109:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;
    let an accuser stand at his right hand”.

And who did Jesus himself call a  Satan?

“But he turned, and said unto [Simon] Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men”. Mathew 16:23. KJV
  It is a strange thing to call Simon Peter (his “rock”) seeing that only four verses earlier in the same chapter Jesus had just offered Simon Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven;
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Mathew 16:19.KJV


  This then we can see, simply means an “accuser” or adversary.  Simon Peter  and Judas referred to as Satan not just by the gospel writers, but  in the case of Peter (his rock) directly by Jesus himself!


#3
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The moral of the garden is that we  were given the knowledge of good and evil, that is, the ability to discern between truth and falsehood, but we do not have the perspective. God created everything and said it was good. So when did it become bad? When people took themselves as being the rightful judge of what is good and evil. That was the fall.

We are always wrong. God is The Righteous One. 

And as everything was created by and through The Word of God, everything has been reconciled back to God. After all, God did it, and we  are saved by and through The Word.

But if you don't believe this, you've really condemned yourself, because nothing else is true. Nothing else can save you. And if you believe this, you will love God as God loved you, and pass this love on to others who were also created by God. You will be moved by the spirit in you to action. 

As a good father to a son, so has God loved you. This is how you are to love others. That love will make you grow up, and discard the vanitiies in your life that keep you from doing the right thing. The love of Christ moves mountains. There is nothing better you can do for yourself and others than to ABIDE in The Way, The Truth. And The Life. 



If you want to get hung up on little alleged inconsistencies in the bible, you are always going to find something. You would also really be missing the entire point of the whole thing. But if this is what you want to do, look for the skeptics annotated bible, and have a field day. Be secure knowing that you will never run out of topics to make in this forum. Never run out of questions.

Or, and I would suggest this instead, you let go of any assumptions concerning what you think you know about the faith, and learn anew.


The bible is not to be an idol placed before God. 



Topic's author
#4
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The moral of the garden is that we  were given the knowledge of good and evil.
 
No there is no moralistic story here at all. So you have started on the wrong foot with your first sentence.
These brand new humans new knew nothing at all, they were naked and not clothed, they didn’t have any understanding about simple modesty or dress codes OR that the point of the exercise was a test in their state of morals.
 
 
God did it, and we  are saved by and through The Word.... And if you believe this, you will love God as God loved you,..... As a good father to a son, so has God loved you.... The Love of Christ moves mountains.....
 
 
Putting everything down to god’s love etc etc isn’t quite answering anything is it? And it isn’t true either is it?
For, didn’t this same god tell us he is "a jealous god", which would be jealous of other gods we can only assume?  And Who threatened to punish for generations to come, the children of those who worship other gods?
 
Lets see:,
 
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;Exodus 20:5
 
And didn’t this so called loving god mention he was a god of war? There are variations of this of course that mention this particular Hebrew/Israelite lord by name, so there is no mistaking whom it is they are talking about. Lets see:,
 
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Jehovah is a man of war; Jehovah, his name.

Yahweh is a man of war. Yahweh is his name.


Jehovah is a man of battle; Jehovah is His name.

 
 I would suggest this instead, you let go of any assumptions concerning what you think you know about the faith, and learn anew.
It is not necessarily the “faith” it is the scriptures themselves.
 
And  if you started addressing some of my “hang-ups”about certain parts of these biblical scriptures, that would be a start, don’t you think?
 
So, why didn't this particular Lord want us not to know anything apart servitude to him,  if the tree of knowledge was not to be touched at all by these brand new humans?
And how was we expected to learn anything. I think it is I suspect. he wanted mankind to be in the dark , to be led like sheep, by his word only and by his own shepherds.

In actual fact, this is exactly what we are told to repeat over and over at school mantra like,  aren't we?: "the lord is my shepherd"

I think you need to have another read of this enigmatic and ambiguous creation story, before I go any further with you.

#5
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7

All your questions are answered by accepting God as what God is.

The Ultimate Reality.


And the truth is, humanity is always going to be in the dark. You think you aren't in the dark because you have "knowledge".


What is the difference between loving The Truth and embracing delusion? It shouldn't be too hard to figure how embracing delusion is not good for you. Not good for the generations that follow you. It isn't to difficult to see that there is no weapon used against The Truth will kill it. It isn't too hard to see that if something actually happened, it was done in reality. No matter how haughty you are, no amount of fighting the truth will change the fact that the truth is the one who makes your life. You can't do anything apart from God.


We are all wrong, but God is right. Knowledge puffs us up to think we are right. We have no righteousness of our own, but any righteousness we do have comes from God, not ourselves. 

So believe in God. Recognize The Truth as being God, and The Truth is bigger than either of us and even the bible itself. The bible testifies of The Truth, it is inspired by God. That doesn't mean it is inerrant or infallible about everything. If it was, the bible would be God. There are people who say the bible is the word of God, but the bible itself says that 

"All things were made by The Word; and without The Word was not any thing made that was made."

Obviously, scripture did not create everything, that is preposterous.

So if you want to believe you got it all figured out, go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Don't think for a second that this means you understand what I believe.
Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
All your questions are answered by accepting God as what God is.
No they are not answered by your jealous and warmongering god and neither are they by you. Stop derailing my threads with your filibustering nonsensical babblings. Do it again and I will report you.

Stay on topic or don't bother at all.
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The fall of man occured when man, puffed up by his own knowledge, took himself to being the rightfull judge of good and evil.

Sounds like your problem.

#8
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The fall of man
That was a failure on God's part, giving Adam and Eve a brain, and they used it. If God didn't want people to think, he should have made them automatons.

#9
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
All your questions are answered by accepting God as what God is.

The Ultimate Reality.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. All you're doing is preaching and spamming the forums with the same thing over and over.

#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Goldtop
There was no mistake. It only looks like a mistake to you because you aren't accepting that God is omnipotent, sovereign over everything.

That means even you only act according to God's will.

So you are being superstitious.
Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The fall of man occured when man, puffed up by his own knowledge, took himself to being the rightfull judge of good and evil.Sounds like your problem.



Reported.

You have  simply refuse to address the issues raised by my thread after requests to do so or  to stay off it. You continued to use my thread to continually bombard it with your  your preaching instead of addressing the the topic.

#12
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
It only looks like a mistake to you because you aren't accepting that God is omnipotent, sovereign over everything.

You can't accept a God who is a failure, who has failed at everything the moment he created man. His greatest failures are his vain attempts at blaming mankind for his incompetence.
Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The fall of man occured when man, puffed up by his own knowledge, took himself to being the rightful judge of good and evil.
 
No. I think you’ll find that the actual “fall” as you put it , came about because the sons of these lords/gods couldn’t keep their hands off human women, and had broken a strict heavenly taboo.
 
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; [GAME]and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6 King James Version (KJV). 
 Indeed it mentions nothing of the earthly man being “taken” by the daughters of these gods , does it? But look who gets the blame for the rape of these innocent unknowledgeable earthly daughters of men:

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
 
Yes your loving god seems to have punished the whole mankind for the sins of his own sons. Yes it was the earthly woman that to blame  according to your god and she was at  fault. And the punishment was to have our life span shortened.
 
Is it any wonder that the Christian church followed suite and dammed the Magdalene and marked her has a scarlet woman i.e. a prostitute? And St Peter saying 
"Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." 

When In reality Mary was one of Jesus' high ranking disciples and his wife?
So we have another son of a god taking an earthly woman of his choosing.


#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
@Goldtop
Believe what you all want to believe, but it isn't what I believe.
#15
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac

That means even you only act according to God's will.

That means Adam acted according to god's will. God screwed up and blamed Adam and punished humanity when he srewed up again.
What a good god [sarcasm]
#16
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Believe what you all want to believe, but it isn't what I believe.

Then, you have rejected the Truth. Hellfire and eternal agony await you.
#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@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?
 
We need to consider some of the context here. the first thing is this: Adam and Eve already knew good from evil. Eating this tree was not going to give them knowledge to knowing good and evil. They knew it was good not to eat from the tree and they knew it was evil to eat of the tree. So the question really is not about them becoming knowing these things - it is something else. Similarly, the tree of life did not give them life for they were alive and had not yet eaten from the tree - so when they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they die - their death must be similar in kind. 

So when the serpent says that they become wise - and knew they were naked, how is that wise? God never said it was wrong to be naked - he made them naked and said it was very good - so how is now wise that they were naked? After all, all of the other beasts were naked too and this was not a problem. Why is it a wise thing to recognise what you already were? It is ironic isn't? The first act of real wisdom is "I am naked, please hide me". 

I personally take the view that what happened here is not about them starting to understand good and evil - but in the manner in which it makes them like God. Prior to that time, good and evil were defined by God for humanity. After the eating of the forbidden fruit, they, namely humanity decided for themselves what good and evil were going to be. This is for those of you who want to define God, the essence of what it means to be God. humanity became gods because they decided what right and wrong was going to be. And their first wise saying is "it is bad to be naked". LOL! humans - you got to hand it to them.  So from then on - all humans wore clothes. Interestingly, one of the significant differences between humans and the animals is the human decision to wear clothes. 
 
And Although it was of this forbidden tree that they ate from and  eventually  were sentenced to die; the Tree of Life didn’t lose any immediate problem.
But the noticeable thing here is that once this couple had “eaten” from said tree they become wise. They had had their eyes opened by a so called “serpent” or mores thecase, on the face of it, a much wiser honest god that the one who said they would die. 
I am reminded here that Jesus talks somewhat admirably about serpents being wise and instructs his disciples to imitate them:

Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV)
 Behold,I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

It appears then that this Lord of Genesis wanted us only to know what he wanted us know, and not a thing more: kept in the dark and ignorant.
 
It seems the wise ole’ snake had done mankind a great big favour.


God did not want us to be ignorant. He wanted us to be truly wise. He wanted us to listen to him and to obey him so that we could experience real life and in his presence. Humanity however chose to listen to Satan, and to reject God's wisdom. He wanted to be wise in his own eyes and after his own counsel and to reject God and his revelation. His first pearl of wisdom is "give me some clothes so that I am not naked." and behold God had to kill a beast to cover him because his fig trees really did not do the job.

Oh humanity fell into darkness because they did not want to remain in the light. They followed their own course and did their own thing and look at the wonderful world we now live in. A delightful paradise full of murderers, and perverts, and rejecters of the light. Oh yes, and we still think nakedness is bad. 
#18
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Ch & Vs please.
#19
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret

We need to consider some of the context here. the first thing is this: Adam and Eve already knew good from evil. Eating this tree was not going to give them knowledge to knowing good and evil. They knew it was good not to eat from the tree and they knew it was evil to eat of the tree.
Produce the verses that support this tripe.
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Are you saying that Adam and Eve did not know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit?

"but God did say, "you must not eat the fruit from the tree …" Genesis 3:3. Is this not what Eve said to the serpent? 

The very fact Even responded to the serpent is because she knew it was wrong. 




#21
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So the question really is not about them becoming knowing these things - it is something else.
You mean, what would the reaction be if two grown adults were told that eating fruit from a specific tree gives one the knowledge of good and evil?

They would probably think it childish, laughable and very ignorant as would any adult.

The first act of real wisdom is "I am naked, please hide me". 
Have you ever tried sitting down in a forest naked? Grown adults need clothes to live in a forest.

I personally take the view that what happened here is not about them starting to understand good and evil - but in the manner in which it makes them like God.
No, they were just smarter than God and God was jealous.
#22
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Goldtop
Oh Goldtop,

so nice of you to drop in.

It is not the fruit which was the issue, it is the what it represented.  God's wisdom or humanity. 

Nakedness in a forest? I would not know. perhaps you could enlighten us?

Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness. 

H



Topic's author
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
God did not want us to be ignorant.
 
Opinion. God makes it quite clear that  mankind was not to touch the tree of KNOWLEDGE! 
 
 
He wanted us to be truly wise.
 
NO he didn’t! and stop telling lies. He  made it clear to stay away from all kinds of knowledge , be it good or bad. You Need to learn to read your bible
 
 
 He wanted us to listen to him and to obey him so that we could experience real life and in his presence.
 
Exactly. He wanted us to know things on a need to know basis. i.e. ONLY what he wanted us to know.
 
 
Humanity however chose to listen to Satan,
I have covered this myth of “satan" already. Is all it means is accuser/opposer. There is nothing sinister about this character created  purely by the early Roman  church
 
 
God had to kill a beast to cover him because his fig trees really did not do the job.
 
Indeed they were hardly WISE enough to make some cloth, fashion it into a garment and sew it all together, were they?  They didn’t become wise although this is what the gods did the fear. These gods plural didn’t want us to know anything other than ploughing and sowing. i.e. just as today,they wanted us to keep our noses to the grindstone and kept ignorant to what is really happening around them
 
A delightful paradise full of murderers, and perverts, and rejecters of the light. Oh yes, and we still think nakedness is bad. 
  The first murder known to mankind was the murder of a son of the “lord” and on his watch. It appears that although the sons of lords were forbidden to lay with earthly woman it appears it was ok for the Lord's themselves. As Eve makes it quite plain and clear who the father was of each of her children.
“And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and Cain”,Genesis 4:1 KJV.
 
 “And [then Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And sheagain bare his brother Abel
It is noticed that the Lord favoured his own sons  gift over that of Adams son. 
#24
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Wow!

Stephen, you are priceless!

can you produce a verse where God said don't touch?

No you cannot. It was Eve's creation. LOL!

I tell no lies. Read that again. I tell no lies. come on darling - please find one. 

Yes, he wanted us to know what we could handle. On a needs to know basis.  but what does that mean ??? there are many things in life where this applies. 

the serpent, satan, whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy.  disgusting. ugly. \

Yes, nakedness, this is the first thing they came up with . A joke really. come and join the wisdom of God - oh no we want to be wise ourselves - and eghhh we are naked - let us run and hide because we are such pitiable demonic creatures. 

what a joke you write. satan was a dick.  Useless and without any power. I reckon all the girls and all the boys rejected him. Impotent. Yes. trying to blame God or the lord is idiotic. Cain murdered his brother because he had rejected God. 

Topic's author
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
the serpent, satan,whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple.From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy.  disgusting. ugly.
 
My wife and children and grand children and my many friends will argue different.

can you produce a verse where God said don't touch?
 
 
Hahahhahahha you really scrape the barrel to come up with ridiculous excuses. So here we are again discussing the semantics of the word “touch”.
 
To eat from the forbidden tree one would have to reach out remove the fruit, bring it to one's mouth and then bite.
 
Of course it wasn’t a tree at all was it? It was the half brother of this lord that was a problem, he wanted humans to be knowledgeable where as this “god  gods” did not.  You need to go back to where this story actually originated, Mesopotamia,and you will read this creation epic in its original form. The two brothers involved are named Enlil and  his half brother Enki the serpent lord<<<<   see that serpent Lord. 
 
The struggle was between two FLESH AND BLOOD lords , half brothers to be precise.It is a much detailed than the half story  given in the bible that was written thousands of years after the alleged event , and incidentally this half brother story is a continuous theme throughout the whole of the bible Old and New Testaments.-  -I am going to do a thread on it.

#26
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret

Are you saying that Adam and Eve did not know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit?
Precisely they didn't know right from wrong, so they couldn't possibly know it was wrong.
Show me the verses that proclaim that A&E new right from wrong was what you were asked for, not what you think some irrelevant verses meant.
Eating the fruit is what made them aware of right and wrong, produce a verse that refutes that and supports your lie.
#27
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
What lie is there? 

Eve knew it was wrong to eat the fruit. She knew she was not meant to eat it - indeed she went further and said she should not even touch it lest she die. 

Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason. She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam. 

If you can't see this then it is a waste of my time trying to show it more. 

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 fact is she must have known  - because God told her and Adam - don't eat the fruit or you will die. Unless she felt death was not a threat, which makes it even more nonsensical. 




#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
It seems to me you would prefer to believe the ridiculous in order to ignore the obvious. In that case, I would rather talk to my grade threes at least they have the brains to recognise what they are looking at. 
Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
Eating the fruit is what made them aware of right and wrong,
Quite correct.  It was the taking and eating of this said forbidden fruit that made them know the difference, Just as the verse states.
"For their eyes were opened."
Gen 3:5  "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
#30
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It is not the fruit which was the issue, it is the what it represented.  God's wisdom or humanity. 
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?

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.

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.