Originally posted by galveston75I'm not saying any of this Galveston, I'm using what's in scripture. Please don't imply that I said something which I didn't.
Yes their eyes were opened to now know what they did and how it made them feel and now knowing they damaged their relationship with their God or father, was no doubt a really bad thing to now know.
But no where does the bible say they knew all of what badness could be and what bad things were going to follow in mankinds existanace in the future and of ...[text shortened]... he case they would be god like as satan promissed but we know satan did nothing but lie to them.
The tree is not described as a "fruit tree" it is described as a tree which gives a particular knowledge. The bible goes on to say that when A&E ate it their "eyes were opened" and they "knew good and evil". Something quite supernatural had occurred because they ate from this special tree.
So yes I would say that the tree was either indued with special knowledge power if it was literally a tree. Or it was symbolic.
Originally posted by galveston75I think the tens of thousands of authors of books on cosmology, geology, palaeontology, anthropology will will have something to say about that. Not to mention peer reviewed papers, posters and journals.
Still there are no accounts being presented that disclaim what the bible says. Why not?
Originally posted by galveston75That's because it's you who has claimed that the Bible version has been corroborated by "all accounts", and now not only are you not willing to say what they are, you somehow think it is up to other people to produce them to substantiate your claim.
Still there are no accounts being presented that disclaim what the bible says. Why not?
Originally posted by FMFOk. If you can't produce any proof that the bible is not correct then so be it. If you do take the time to find any, I'll take a look.
That's because it's you who has claimed that the Bible version has been corroborated by "all accounts", and now not only are you not willing to say what they are, you somehow think it is up to other people to produce them to substantiate your claim.
Originally posted by divegeesterWell it had fruit on it so I'd say it was a fruit tree.
I'm not saying any of this Galveston, I'm using what's in scripture. Please don't imply that I said something which I didn't.
The tree is not described as a "fruit tree" it is described as a tree which gives a particular knowledge. The bible goes on to say that when A&E ate it their "eyes were opened" and they "knew good and evil". Something quite su ...[text shortened]... e was either indued with special knowledge power if it was literally a tree. Or it was symbolic.
Gen 3:3: " Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say,
(((((((( ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree))))))))) that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 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 When the woman saw that ((((((( the fruit of the tree )))))))) was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
So now that we do see it was a fruit tree I'd like to know by your explination that they knew something over and above more then they had in fact sinned and now felt guilty?
How were their eyes opened to a greater amount then this fact?
Originally posted by divegeesterThe tree is not described as a "fruit tree" it is described as a tree which gives a particular knowledge.
I'm not saying any of this Galveston, I'm using what's in scripture. Please don't imply that I said something which I didn't.
The tree is not described as a "fruit tree" it is described as a tree which gives a particular knowledge. The bible goes on to say that when A&E ate it their "eyes were opened" and they "knew good and evil". Something quite su ...[text shortened]... e was either indued with special knowledge power if it was literally a tree. Or it was symbolic.
I use different translations of the Bible, and they all say it was a tree that had fruit. It doesn't literally say "fruit tree", so in that regard you are correct. But how many fruit trees do not produce fruit? What version (translation) of the Bible are you using?
The bible goes on to say that when A&E ate it their "eyes were opened" and they "knew good and evil". Something quite supernatural had occurred because they ate from this special tree.
Not necessarily a supernatural event. If they had obeyed God and not eaten the forbidden fruit then what knowledge of evil could they have gained? Good was a given and undefined (for A&E) until they had done something bad. How would you define or understand the word "good" without there being a counterpart for contrast?
Or how would you, using another example, define the word "up" if there was no such thing as "down"?
So if they did gain some new knowledge of right and wrong beyond what I suggested and their eyes or minds were now seeing or understanding something supernatural or almost a god like knowledge, why does the bible not express that or explain what the new enlghtenment was that they would not have had as a normal human that god created?
And if they did gain this new open eyed/minded knowledge that was beyond just experiancing guilt and sorrow for what they did against God, what good did it do for them?
Did they now challenge God and express this new knowledge and tell God they now knew alot of new things about right and wrong and maybe they just wanted God to leave them alone as they didn't need him anymore and were now enlightend as never before?
No.....They did not and never said such a thing to him. They knew they were wrong and were deserved of his punishment. Simple as that.
Originally posted by galveston75It doesn't say anything about that, except to say this god is supposed to be all knowing and such, which to me negates the need for this god to set of any kind of test for anyone at any time. Which tells me the story was just made up by men who didn't think through the implications of their writings.
Where does the bible say that?
"What did the soil in the garden consist of?" is a facilely materialistic interpretation of the Garden myth. It's not about rocks and soil. It's an allegory about growing up, about achieving moral maturity. Man starts out in a child-like state of ignorance and knows nothing about morality or mortality. Man comes to a knowledge of his true nature ("in the image of God" ) only by eating of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) and by recognizing his mortality--both of which distinguish him from all other animals. Achieving this knowledge is experienced as a loss of innocence, as banishment from a child's paradise.
The crucial question is not what was the soil made of, but why God put a snake in the Garden. Or, what comes to the same thing, why would God forbid man to eat of the tree of knowledge and thereby become god-like (in God's image) in the knowledge of good and evil? Why would God forbid man to grow up?
My opinion is that God forbade it KNOWING that this alone would make it interesting enough (i.e., tempting) for man to do it. Had God not forbidden it, man would have remained ignorant and child-like forever.
Originally posted by moonbusOr, alternatively, the whole story was just made up by men to kick start a religion. There are thousands of creation stories but christians insist THEIR creation story is the ONE TRUE story to be taken literally if some of us are to believe.
"What did the soil in the garden consist of?" is a facilely materialistic interpretation of the Garden myth. It's not about rocks and soil. It's an allegory about growing up, about achieving moral maturity. Man starts out in a child-like state of ignorance and knows nothing about morality or mortality. Man comes to a knowledge of his true nature ("in the ima ...[text shortened]... man to do it. Had God not forbidden it, man would have remained ignorant and child-like forever.