The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by KellyJay
They were not defenseless, they were told the truth and they were told
a lie. There was a conflict of stories, one was to be believed, and one was
to be rejected. Now all things being equal they either trusted the serpent
or trust God, the thing that swayed them was what they wanted, not
who they trusted.

Edit:
Not unlike now, we will typically go with what we want, not always what
the truth is.
Kelly

They were not defenseless, they were told the truth and they were told
a lie.

But how would they be able to tell the difference if they didn't know what a lie was? Going back to earlier in this thread I posed the question how would you define 'up' if there was no 'down'?

The last point I made here was they didn't really need to know. And yet Satan managed to convince Eve it was okay to go for it, and Adam followed suit. And yes, they went for what they wanted, but only after the Serpent made it look appealing. Before that I doubt they wanted it or gave it a second thought. God said no, so that was it... Period.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]They were not defenseless, they were told the truth and they were told
a lie.

But how would they be able to tell the difference if they didn't know what a lie was? Going back to earlier in this thread I posed the question how would you define 'up' if there was no 'down'?

The last point I made here was they didn't really need to know. And yet ...[text shortened]... that I doubt they wanted it or gave it a second thought. God said no, so that was it... Period.[/b]

They were not stupid! Adam knew where Eve came from as soon as he
saw her! He names every animal that God brought before him. God told
Adam what was going to happen, Eve even repeated to the serpent. The
fact it was a lie should have been a very large red flag! They did not
debate what was true or not, they went with what was pleasing, and they
made their choice based upon that, not upon I don't know the truth from
a lie.

God gave them the "up" when He told them exactly what was going to
happen, and they knew it. As soon as they were confronted, they started
passing the buck, Adam to Eve, and Eve to the serpent. Blaming another
for their own bad behavior was there, they grasp blame!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
They were not stupid! Adam knew where Eve came from as soon as he
saw her! He names every animal that God brought before him. God told
Adam what was going to happen, Eve even repeated to the serpent. The
fact it was a lie should have been a very large red flag! They did not
debate what was true or not, they went with what was pleasing, and they
made th ...[text shortened]... to the serpent. Blaming another
for their own bad behavior was there, they grasp blame!
Kelly

Adam also blamed God when he said "the woman you gave me..". So sure, that's when the first blame game took place. But the point I'm trying to make is that Adam and Eve weren't being stupid, they were simply naive and didn't have much to work with to resist the devils influence.

Just look at how easy it is today to get someone to want something they didn't even know they wanted until someone else convinced them they wanted it. I occasionally see a commercial on TV that cracks me up, because it tries selling men on the idea that "no one wants to be bald". It's true I've never wanted to be bald, but I never knew that I cared whether I became bald or not... because frankly I don't care if I'm balding or not. I've never wanted to be bald and have never not wanted to be bald. And after seeing that commercial, I am now absolutely convinced I never want to become so vain that all I can think about is making sure I always have a full head of hair... LOL

Originally posted by lemon lime
Adam also blamed God when he said "the woman you gave me..". So sure, that's when the first blame game took place. But the point I'm trying to make is that Adam and Eve weren't being stupid, they were simply naive and didn't have much to work with to resist the devils influence.

Just look at how easy it is today to get someone to want something ...[text shortened]... ecome so vain that all I can think about is making sure I always have a full head of hair... LOL

They were not that naive, she quoted what God said, they knew!
Granted they may not have known how bad following that lie was going
to take everyone, but they were not clueless.

We do tend to do what we want, we will justify ourselves against what we
know is true, and you are spot on correct, Adam blamed God. I guess we
have been doing that for a long time now too.

Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
They were not that naive, she quoted what God said, they knew!
Granted they may not have known how bad following that lie was going
to take everyone, but they were not clueless.

We do tend to do what we want, we will justify ourselves against what we
know is true, and you are spot on correct, Adam blamed God. I guess we
have been doing that for a long time now too.

Kelly

Well, okay.... I wanted to win this discussion, but I'll settle for a draw.

😉

Originally posted by divegeester
Although I don't agree with all you've posted, I've enjoyed your open mindedness and honesty in these few exchanges.

Thanks. I look forward to future conversations with you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, okay.... I wanted to win this discussion, but I'll settle for a draw.

😉

LOL okay
Kelly

Originally posted by HandyAndy
According to the Bible, Adam lived for 930 years. It doesn't say how old he was when he ate the apple.

I think we can assume he was not yet a father when he ate the apple; Adam and Eve appear to have discovered sex after having eaten the apple. So let´s guess he was in his youth, whatever numerical age "youth" might mean for a man who can live 930 years.

Now, I put the following to the literalist camp here: if you attach the word "literal" to the word "day", and you then say that God´s statement that "you will surely die in the day you eat of the forbidden tree" means that he is going to die SOMEDAY in the future--and that future turns out be be over 900 years later[!]--then your literalist interpretation is tenuous.

It would mean, for example, that God´s having made the universe in "six days" also took some vague period up to 6 times 900 years, and no literalist holds that position. The literalist position on creation is that it took a very definite period of 6 times 24 hours, because _that_ is the literal meaing of the word "day". When you stretch the meaning of "day" in Gen2:17 to mean "any period up to 900 years" you are not being literal any more; you are arbitrarily re-defining words in bizarre ways.

Cherry-picking is when you say "day" is to mean "24 hours" in one passage of Genesis but "any period up to 900 years" in some other passage. It´s not merely my opinion; it´s what some of you are doing here in this tread. If words are to mean anything, their meanings must be constant and not re-definable from one minute to the next.

Originally posted by moonbus
I think we can assume he was not yet a father when he ate the apple; Adam and Eve appear to have discovered sex after having eaten the apple. So let´s guess he was in his youth, whatever numerical age "youth" might mean for a man who can live 930 years.

Now, I put the following to the literalist camp here: if you attach the word "literal" to the word "day ...[text shortened]... mean anything, their meanings must be constant and not re-definable from one minute to the next.

I guess it is a matter of what translation you use on if you even have a
debate or not.

Gen 2:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam went from an eternal being to one that lived 900+ years old. That
was the moment he went from one to the other.
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
What is your point here? Are you saying if an effect doesn't immediately follow a cause then it can't be the effect of that cause?

No. Here is what you posted:

Originally posted by lemon lime
"the day" means the day he eats of that fruit. It doesn't mean he will die on that day. Cause and effect. If you do this, then that will surely happen. If I say you will surely die, it doesn't mean you will die right now. It just means that it will surely happen.

Are you saying that when God said "on THIS day you will surely die" that he was being in some way allegorical?

Originally posted by lemon lime
"the day" means the day he eats of that fruit. It doesn't mean he will die on that day. Cause and effect. If you do this, then that will surely happen. If I say you will surely die, it doesn't mean you will die right now. It just means that it will surely happen.
[/i]

Adam was mortal, right? So Adam would surely have died anyway eventually, even if he hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit. So what's the point of God's telling him "you're going to die SOMEDAY if you eat it"?

Nor do I see any sense in saying that it means something like "you will start dying (slowly) on the day you eat it." If Adam was mortal, then he started dying the day he was created, well before he ate the forbidden fruit.

It seems to me that there's something important that's beeen glossed over in this thread so far. I don't think the issue in Gen2:17 is about cause and effect or slow-acting poison. There is certainly no suggestion that Adam's eating of the tree of knowledge will poison him. It's about obedience and defiance, it seems to me; it's about God's saying "there is something I, God, do not want you, man, to do and I, God, have my own reasons for this which you, man, dare not question."

Comments ... ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only scripture I'm going to provide is the only one that tells you
it was a tree. Read Gen yourself, it said it was a tree in the story, I
believe it was a tree. You want to say otherwise, that is on you, I do not
care.
Kelly

You obviously do care or you wouldn't spend pages and pages contesting your position. I have read genesis probably a hundred times btw. And the tree is symbolic as I've demonstrated several repeated times in this thread.

Originally posted by KellyJay

Adam went from an eternal being to one that lived 900+ years old. That
was the moment he went from one to the other.

Rather a lot depends on whether Adam was created mortal or immortal.

EDIT: If he was created mortal, then threatening him with death at some vague time in the far distant future if he eates the forbidden fruit makes no sense and doesn't jive with the statement that he will surely die "in the day" he eats the fruit.

EDIT 2: correct me if I mis-remember here, but isn't it eating from the _second_ tree, the tree of life, that would have made Adam immortal ("like us", meaning like the gods)?

Originally posted by moonbus
Rather a lot depends on whether Adam was created mortal or immortal.

Death entered through sin, so until there was sin there was no death. By default Adam was immortal. This brings the thread back to my OP about the soil in the garden; contemporary soil consists of organic matter from decaying plants and animals etc. But without death the soil must have been different in the garden. Most here who have been claiming that the soil was the same as it is now ["dirt" one poster said] are also claiming that the tree of life was real with roots etc. These roots would be feeding on the decaying matter which was caused through sin. The tree of life supposedly sustaining itself through death. Slightly bizarre to say the least.

Originally posted by divegeester
Death entered through sin, so until there was sin there was no death. By default Adam was immortal. This brings the thread back to my OP about the soil in the garden; contemporary soil consists of organic matter from decaying plants and animals etc. But without death the soil must have been different in the garden. Most here who have been claiming that ...[text shortened]... The tree of life supposedly sustaining itself through death. Slightly bizarre to say the least.

See my second edit, posted after your response.

Were all the animals and plants in the garden immortal? If not, then their remains fertilized the soil.