08 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi did read genesis and they did not know better. they knew only that it was forbidden but before eating from the tree, they could not know what they did was wrong.
They knew better and if you had read Genesis, you would know
that they knew better.
if you read genesis, you will even see the childish naivete of eve; she described the fruit as good to eat, and pretty to look at, and had a curiosity to become wise. she had no idea what she was doing was wrong until after she ate of the tree.
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou might say this of Eve but Adam was fully instructed and was informed
i did read genesis and they did not know better. they knew only that it was forbidden but before eating from the tree, they could not know what they did was wrong.
if you read genesis, you will even see the childish naivete of eve; she described the fruit as good to eat, and pretty to look at, and had a curiosity to become wise. she had no idea what she was doing was wrong until after she ate of the tree.
that the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit was death. But he
chose to disobey God anyway knowing that he could freely eat of all the
other fruit in the garden and only the fruit of this one tree would cause
his death, if eaten.
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsthey were both naive. neither knew anything about death, punishment or responsibility. you might as well tell them dodo is dada. without experiencing these things, they could not know about them and without eating from the fruit of the tree, they could not know it was wrong.
You might say this of Eve but Adam was fully instructed and was informed
that the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit was death. But he
chose to disobey God anyway knowing that he could freely eat of all the
other fruit in the garden and only the fruit of this one tree would cause
his death, if eaten.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWe teach our children many things that they never actually experience.
they were both naive. neither knew anything about death, punishment or responsibility. you might as well tell them dodo is dada. without experiencing these things, they could not know about them and without eating from the fruit of the tree, they could not know it was wrong.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsit's irrelevant. no child is born with full knowledge of proper behavior and obedience to parental commands. children are constantly pushing their boundaries to explore the limitations of their environment and they learn these things mostly through experience.
We teach our children many things that they never actually experience.
09 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpirit=============================
they were both naive. neither knew anything about death, punishment or responsibility. you might as well tell them dodo is dada. without experiencing these things, they could not know about them and without eating from the fruit of the tree, they could not know it was wrong.
they were both naive. neither knew anything about death, punishment or responsibility. you might as well tell them dodo is dada. without experiencing these things, they could not know about them and without eating from the fruit of the tree, they could not know it was wrong.
===================================
In the case of Ninevah in the book of Jonah, God does scold the prophet Jonah, that there are naive people in the city.
"And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle?" (Jonah 3:11)
Here God knows even the precise count of the people who are naive. And several other instances in the Old Testament indicate that God knows to what extent men should be held accountable.
If Adam was naive as you say, I don't see why it would not be told us that God knew that.
Had he not ran off to hide after his transgression, then I might understand he had absolutely no sense of the wrongness of what he had done. We don't see him naively standing by ready for the customary pleasant fellowship he enjoyed previously with his Creator. We see both the man and his wife running off to hide themselves.
Adam knew it was wrong by taking his Creator's word for it that it should not be eaten.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillhe did tell you, though not in so many words. the gist of it is in genesis 3:22
If Adam was naive as you say, I don't see why it would not be told us that God knew that.
Had he not ran off to hide after his transgression, then I might understand he had absolutely no sense of the wrongness of what he had done. We don't see him naively standing by ready for the customary pleasant fellowship he enjoyed previously with his Creator. ...[text shortened]...
Adam knew it was wrong by taking his Creator's word for it that it should not be eaten.[/b]
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
it is clear from this statement that before eating from the fruit, they did not know the difference between right and wrong. now, the only thing separating man and god is is immortality, so they had to go.
the entire legend is absurd. from the very beginning, we learn of god's petty nature of setting man up for the fall just so he can make a point... and it only gets worse from there.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDo you think right and wrong is the same as good and evil?
he did tell you, though not in so many words. the gist of it is in genesis 3:22
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
it is clear from this statement that before eating from the fruit, they did not k ...[text shortened]... setting man up for the fall just so he can make a point... and it only gets worse from there.
09 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit=====================================
he did tell you, though not in so many words. the gist of it is in genesis 3:22
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
it is clear from this statement that before eating from the fruit, they did not k setting man up for the fall just so he can make a point... and it only gets worse from there.
he did tell you, though not in so many words. the gist of it is in genesis 3:22
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
it is clear from this statement that before eating from the fruit, they did not know the difference between right and wrong. now, the only thing separating man and god is is immortality, so they had to go.
the entire legend is absurd. from the very beginning, we learn of god's petty nature of setting man up for the fall just so he can make a point... and it only gets worse from there.
==========================================
I agree that Genesis 3:22 does show that after eating Adam has something that God has. However, before eating, what Adam needed to know had its source DIRECTLY from God. It came not through the human conscience but from direct interaction with God.
Adam had all the knowing he needed in just trusting his loving Creator in obedience:
" And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen. 2:16,17)
The difference is in Adam being dependent upon God for God to directly inform him of the good and evil or Adam seeking independence to have that source within him without regard to depending upon God.
No being was created autonomous. Only God is self existing and independent. All other creatures created by God are dependent. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was an opportunity for the created man to follow Satan in a revolt and thrust for independence from God.
I think you should also notice that God did not say "the day you eat of it, you will begin to do bad things." Both good and evil were in the tree. God rather told him that the day of his eating he would die. It was a tree of death.
To withdraw from God was a dynamic degeneration into death. In that degradation the rebel might do good and evil. But the move of independence from God could only result in a downward slide into death.
Adam, before the fall, was also tasked with naming all of the animals (Gen.2:20) . This was a task of great managerial ability. And we should not take it for granted. For it shows that Adam in a sense bestowed meaning on each creature. What he called it, that is what it was.
The intellect required to do this must have been tremendous. It is hard for me to imagine being without "the knowledge of good and evil" rendered the first man some kind of naive moron. In his state of dependence upon God he had great managerial ability and the high level intelligence of a perfect human being.
He was a "very good" specimen of a human being before eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The implication of your criticism is that not having this "knowledge of good and evil" renders him in some way subhuman.
If you believe the Bible as I do, the actions of Adam and the mandates assigned to him reveal that he could not have been deficient, defective, or subhuman in any way. He made a wrong choice at independence from God. In light of the whole Bible, we see this brought him under the authority of God's enemy Satan. And he begins to die.
Furthermore, though man now has the knowledge of good and evil as m inward independent source, he will too often lack the life power to perform the good that he knows or resist the evil that he knows. Adam now has the knowledge. He loses the life power of self control.
It is ironic that in a thrust for self independence he instead loses self control. Death is the ultimate loss of that self control. Sin is the defect on the way to death.
Unlike you, I do not regard the account as nonsense. The more I consider it the more I have the sense of its profoundness. I don't think such a record could have come out of mere human imagination.
For one, "the knowledge of good and evil" I don't think is something that mere human imagination would produce. Both the knowing of good and the knowing of evil were on the same tree. I think this is a divinely inspired account. I don't think man would write about a tree with "the knowledge of good and evil".
And the other tree, "the tree of life" . Adam already had plenty of life. He had an everlasting life. There was no warning to him that if he FAILED to eat of the tree of life he would die.
So then we might ask - What was the need for a tree of life?. Adam already had an endless life that was "very good" .
In the whole revelation of the Bible it is evident that to take in the tree of life was to take in God Himself that God could live in man. Man was very good, innocent, and sinless, with a created everlasting life. But apparently, that alone did not meet God's need to fulfill His eternal purpose. God intended that this very good man take God Himself into him as "food" that man would be saturated with God.
He did not want a good man. He wanted a God-man. God wanted a man who is "organically" mingled and united with the uncreated Person of God Himself.
Christ comes as this divine life of God from which Adam became barred when the way to the tree of life was closed.
"In Him was LIFE, and the LIFE was the light of men." (John 1:4)
"I have come that they may have LIFE and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10)
"I am the bread of LIFE" (John 6:48)
"I am the resurrection and the LIFE ..." (John 11:25)
" I am the way and the truth and the LIFE" (John 14:6)
"The last Adam became a LIFE giving Spirit" ( Cor. 15:45)
All these passages and many more reveal that this tree of life from which Adam was barred is now Jesus Christ the Lord. Through His death and resurrection man can come back to the life of God from which he was alienated:
The fallen sinners from Adam were all " being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignoranance which was in them, because of the hardness of their hearts." (Eph. 4:18)
The flaming sword of the cherubim of glory is removed in the redemption of Christ. We may now come back to the divine Person, the uncreated Divine Life of God by coming to Jesus Christ the Son.
09 Aug 11
4 edits
================================
the entire legend is absurd. from the very beginning, we learn of god's petty nature of setting man up for the fall just so he can make a point... and it only gets worse from there.
=========================================
You cannot say that God set man up to fall. You can only say that FALL is what happened.
Neither can you fault the God of infinite wisdom that He had a plan of redemption in mind even before the FALL which happened.
There is nothing petty about the God wanting to make a point. He is only the Creator of the universe and of all life. Why should God not want to make a point? All meaning of existence has its source in God. So what foolishness is this that you would charge error against the Ground of all being to wish to make a point ?
And a point which impacts all humanity through out eternity is a very powerful point. A point that is displayed to all creatures human or angelic throughout all eternity is a powerful point.
If you have a more powerful point to why you are alive here and what the meaning of your life is, tell us. If not why fault God for wanting to make His point to His creation ?
I don't think you should envy God because you are clueless and have no point about the meaning of your existence.
Why are you here ? What's your point ?
10 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillyes, i can say that because that is exactly what happened.
You cannot say that God set man up to fall. You can only say that FALL is what happened.
here's another way of putting it. i put a toddler in a room with many toys and a grenade. i tell the toddler: "you may play with any toy in this room, but do not touch the grenade. if you pull the pin, you will die!
then i leave.... and wait for the bang. [*snicker*]
" Neither can you fault the God of infinite wisdom that He had a plan of redemption in mind even before the FALL which happened."
that's a follow-up absurdity.
" There is nothing petty about the God wanting to make a point."
He is only the Creator of the universe and of all life. Why should God not want to make a point? All meaning of existence has its source in God. So what foolishness is this that you would charge error against the Ground of all being to wish to make a point ?"
a needy deity is an imperfect deity. your biblegod is petty and narcissistic, constantly needing praise and love from his 'creation' and violently jealous if that love is directed towards another or is not directed within the required parameters.
"... Why are you here ? What's your point ?[/b]"
and the point harkens back to the OP: that nothing biblegod does is logical or good when described as a 'loving' and 'just' deity.
it does however begin to make perfect sense if you describe him as psychotic and narcissistic.