Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ramifications of omnipotence for God
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 181 of 224 (418188)
08-26-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by pbee
08-25-2007 9:03 PM


pbee responds to me:
quote:
Arguing the notion that an entity such as God is somehow incapable of creating beings with the capacity to understand his own instruction is nothing short of foolish.
Even though that's what the text directly tells us? Look, I'm not the one that wrote that Adam and Eve were innocent. The author of Genesis did.
Again, what was the very first thing Adam and Eve panicked about after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge and became as gods. You'd think it would have been over violating the only command they had ever been given, but it seems that something else is more pressing.
Just before the serpent arrives, the Bible directly states that Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm and yet were not ashamed. How can that possibly be if they understood good and evil? Well, either their actions weren't sinful until they ate from the tree or they didn't understand good and evil. We can pretty much do away with the former so that leaves the latter.
Unless you're going to say that they had selective comprehension, only understanding the one command of god and being blissfully unaware of all other sins they were committing.
quote:
No God(of any nature) with such capabilities would even bother to waist time creating creatures with the reasoning power of parrots
Says who? You? Who are you to speak for god as to why he did anything?
There's another possibility, you know: God made a mistake. It wouldn't be the only time that god did something without thinking it all the way through.
quote:
Much to the contrary, it was written that the Garden was a vast area filled with an abundance of wonderful things(food, water, animals etc).
So? How does that mean that Adam and Eve, being innocent, wouldn't eventually get to the tree? Especially when they have the serpent contradicting god? Again, how on earth do Adam and Eve decide who to believe when they have no understanding of good and evil and thus no concept of "obedience" or "defiance"?
Once again, you're attributing to Adam and Eve traits that they could only have if they had eaten from the tree. Why on earth would they avoid it? Yeah, god said, "Don't touch!" but what on earth does that mean to someone who doesn't understand obedience? After all, look at what the Bible says is Eve's point of view: She looks at the tree and sees that the fruit isn't rotten but rather good to eat. And don't be disingenuous and equivocate "good to eat" with morality.
quote:
As mentioned earlier, the tree in itself was not the danger, it was the act which placed humans in contempt to God's laws, not the tree or it's fruit.
And neither was the vase the danger nor the pedestal. It was the act which placed the child in contempt of the parent's commandment, not the vase.
But it is impossible to "disobey" when you don't understand good and evil. Again, Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm before the serpent comes along.
I keep asking this of you and you have yet to answer it: What was the first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the tree? You'd think it would be having eaten from the tree since that was the only command they had ever been given. And yet, they don't. Instead, it's something else that impresses itself upon their mind so forcefully that they run and hide.
So if they didn't understand they were sinning before and if it wasn't considered something to get upset over, how is eating from the tree any different? Yeah, it's something that god didn't want them to do, but it wasn't like they were "disobeying" anything. You can't disobey if you don't understand good and evil.
If they weren't sinning before, how could they be sinning now? And if they were sinning before, then eating from the tree is not the original sin. It's just the one that a capricious god decided to throw a hissy fit over.
It won't be the only time god makes a mistake and flies off the handle. But at least one other time, god says he's sorry and promises that he will never do it again. Unfortunately, the promise is that he'll never do the specific act again, not that he'll think about things and maintain composure. Surely I don't need to remind you of how Abraham and Moses continually cajole god to calm down. Abraham rebukes god for being about to commit a great sin and god stops, listens, agrees, and changes his mind.
quote:
Who in their right mind would believe that God would disguise himself as another person only to claim that He himself(God) lied to them about sin?
Huh? "Disguise himself"? Who on earth said the serpent was god? All I said was that the serpent said something in contradiction to god. So how are Adam and Eve supposed to figure out which one to believe? Remember, they're innocent and don't know good from evil, so appeals to such things like, "Well, it's god," won't fly: They don't understand what that means.
quote:
That aspect of this theory alone completely voids any reasoning that Eve didn't know whether Satan was God or not.
Huh? "Satan"? Who on earth said anything about Satan? We're talking about the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b], not Satan. The Bible directly states that the serpent was nothing more than an animal. Remember how the serpent gets punished: Not as some sort of fallen angel but as a simple "beast of the field." The serpent has his legs removed. His children will be hated by humans (which leads to the question, if god can change the feelings of humans to hate snakes, why couldn't he change the attitude of humans to understand good and evil and yet still have free will and not eat from the tree?) Unless you're saying that snakes are the children of the devil, then Satan has nothing to do with it.
Remember: There was no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written.
quote:
The arrangement never required humans to experience sin in order to understand it.
I never said it did. But we're dealing with the reverse: If you don't understand it, can you really be said to be sinning?
Of course not. Sin requires intent and understanding that you are doing something wrong. Since Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree, they had no understanding of right and wrong and thus were absolutely incapable of [I][B]SINNING[/i][/b]. That doesn't mean they were incapable of carrying out an action that would be considered a sin if they knew what they were doing. It simply means that it can't be considered a "sin" precisely and specifically because they had no comprehension of right and wrong and thus didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. Suppose a toilet seat from Mir managed to make it through re-entry and hit a young girl from the Pacific Northwest, killing her instantly (bonus points if you catch the reference). Would we say that the toilet seat was guilty of murder? Of course not. Murder requires deliberation, something a toilet seat cannot do. This was an accident. The girl is still dead, but there was no intent to kill her.
Again, Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm before the serpent came into the picture. What was the very first thing Adam and Eve panic over when their eyes open and they become as gods, knowing good and evil? You'd think it would have been the fact that they just ate from the tree since that was the only thing they were told not to do. But strangely, it's something else that comes up. It scares them so much that they run and hide.
quote:
To try and state that Adam and Eve were somehow incapable of understanding, abases them bellow the reasoning of most animals. As you said... they were not stupid!
Of course. They were innocent. And it certainly doesn't "abase" them. It simply parrots what the Bible directly says about them. If you don't like the fact that they were innocent, take it up with god.
By the way: All humans start out innocent. Are you saying humans are "below animals" until they grow up?
Another thing that you need to think about: When you go to a foreign country, you become an innocent. You don't understand the new culture's opinion regarding what is right and what is wrong. Are you suddenly "below animals"? Are you saying that a human can suddenly become beneath an animal simply by crossing the border?
quote:
Satan didn't lie...?
Huh? Who said anything about Satan? We're talking about the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b]. The devil doesn't enter into it. There is no such thing as the devil at the time Genesis was written.
That said, the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] did not lie, no. The serpent said, and I quote:
Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
That's it. And sure enough, that's precisely what happens. They don't die and their eyes open and they become as gods, knowing good and evil:
Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened
[...]
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:
Everything that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] said came to pass. How is it that you can claim that he lied?
quote:
Well that depends on what word games we're playing doesn't it?
Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is the claim that god told the truth that requires people to play word games. The text of the command that god gives Adam regarding what will happen says, quite clearly, before the sun sets on the specific, literal day that you eat of the tree, you will be physically dead. That's the only way to read the Hebrew. God is not referring to a "spiritual" death. God is not referring to some death in some nebulous time in the future. He says pretty much instantaneous demise.
For anybody to say that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] was lying and god was telling the truth means we have to play amazing word games on the level of black = white.
quote:
Satan deceived Eve into thinking that they would become powerful(like God) and that they would gain such power when they ate the fruit.
Huh? Satan? What does Satan have to do with anything? We're talking about the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b], not the devil. There is no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written.
And no, there was no deception. Everything the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] said would happen came to pass. Adam and Eve did become as gods, knowing good and evil. God directly says so:
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:
Are you saying god is lying here? The only way to support your narrative is to pretty much conclude that everything god says is a lie: When it is said that Adam and Eve were not ashamed, they really were. When god says they will die, that isn't what god meant. When it is said that they became as gods, they really didn't.
quote:
While "technically" he did not lie about the knowing the difference between good and bad, Eve certainly didn't choose to betray God over the idea of added knowledge!
Stop right there. Eve didn't "betray" anybody. Betrayal requires knowledge of good and evil, which Eve didn't have because she hadn't eaten of the tree. Did she do what god didn't want her to do? Of course. But she was phsyically incapable of "betrayal."
quote:
She chose to do so on the idea that she would be as powerful as God.
And why not? Explain how she is supposed to know that the shouldn't do that when she doesn't understand what right and wrong are. You keep coming back to this idea that she is somehow capable of understanding that god is good when she doesn't know what good is.
quote:
She chose to betray God and to believe that God lied to her and Adam.
Again, Eve didn't betray anybody and god did lie to her and Adam.
quote:
She chose to overthrow God sovereignty just as Satan had.
Huh? "Satan"? What does Satan have to do with anything? There is no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written.
quote:
Regardless, Adam and Eve died just as God had said and they gained absolutely nothing by their action other than imperfection and banishment.
That's not what the Bible says. Tell me where in Genesis 3 we find Adam and Eve dying as god said they would. Remember, the threat god gave Adam in Genesis 2 was that he would be physically dead before the sun set on the day he ate of the tree.
And are you calling god a liar?
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:
Are you saying that when god says that Adam and Eve had become as gods, he wasn't speaking the truth?
Wow. For all the direct falsehoods to be found in Genesis regarding god's statements, it's a wonder you believe anything else in the book as true. In a sense, this goes back to one of the ways we can show that Pascal's Wager is false: The Bible is clearly mistaken, so why would god want to accept anybody who follows it as true?
quote:
I think it's safe to say that you are in dire need of scriptural instruction where biblical interpretations are concerned.
(*chuckle*)
Why is it that in our discussion, I've been the only one referencing and quoting the thing?
Genesis 9:11: And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Why would god say that he would never, ever do this again if it were not a realization that it was wrong to do so? If humanity could become so corrupted once, what is to prevent it from becoming so corrupt again? If it was justified to kill everything in that case, why not do it again should we find ourselves in the same position?
quote:
However... I would add that in the most obvious cases, where a theory sees continuous controversy in the face of evidence, the typical route is to acknowledge the issues and reevaluate those theories.
Indeed. Since the texts of the Bible have been under continuous controversy from the moment of its inception, don't you think that those who follow it should acknowledge the issues and reevaluate the text? Why should anybody else be punished for your sloppy narrative?
quote:
The alternative would be to take the radical path and choose to ignore all evidence and reasoning on the said matters.
Hey, you said it. I didn't.
quote:
It was, completely unconditional and it was true to Gods word.
Ahem. If it were completely unconditional, then god wouldn't have had a problem with Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge. That's what "unconditional" means.
Instead, there were conditions...some of them unstated and for which Adam and Eve were punished anyway. How interesting it would have been had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life first.
quote:
How can imperfect humans accurately evaluate God as an all powerful entity?
Because we are as gods, knowing good and evil.
Or are you calling god a liar?
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:
quote:
For the most part, the implications of the term "omnipotence" are human terms with human definitions and human limitations.
Not at all. I can't fly, but I can easily envision an omnipotent being being capable of flight simply by willing it to be so.
He's known as "Superman."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by pbee, posted 08-25-2007 9:03 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by pbee, posted 08-27-2007 12:06 PM Rrhain has replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 182 of 224 (418308)
08-27-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rrhain
08-26-2007 9:40 PM


quote:
So? How does that mean that Adam and Eve, being innocent, wouldn't eventually get to the tree?
Especially when they have the serpent contradicting god? Again, how on earth do Adam and Eve decide who to
believe when they have no understanding of good and evil and thus no concept of "obedience" or "defiance"?
Again your concept revolves around the assumption that Adam and Eve were incapable of reasoning the differences between good and bad.
The first human pair were not ignorant of the knowledge of good and bad. Since God told them that it would be wrong or bad to eat of the fruit of one designated tree, conversely, obeying God was good. So the particular knowledge indicated by the tree of good and bad involved self-determination of what is good and bad. On this, Adam and Eve chose to know for themselves what was good and evil. They rejected God’s determination and chose to set up their own standard of what was good and what was bad. Or for the better lack of terms, self-regulation.
When Satan approached Eve, he asked her a simple question. "Wherefore has God said, Eat not of every tree of the garden?" and Eve answered "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Again... how could Eve recite conditions and consequences and not know what she was saying? The bottom line is She knew exactly what not to do, and she knew exactly what would happen if they disobeyed. - It's right there in black and white, plain as day.
quote:
What was the first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the tree?
Guilt from the perversion sin had brought upon them.
quote:
It won't be the only time god makes a mistake and flies off the handle. But at least one other time, god says he's sorry and promises that he will never do it again. Unfortunately, the promise is that he'll never do the specific act again, not that he'll think about things and maintain composure. Surely I don't need to remind you of how Abraham and Moses continually cajole god to calm down. Abraham rebukes god for being about to commit a great sin and god stops, listens, agrees, and changes his mind.
This is nothing more than feeble attempts to redirect reasoning to ones liking. Sadly, such occurrences are quite popular since there are those who have been trying to blame God for the state of mankind since the beginning of recorded history. However, the reasoning is always based on the same angles and misconstrued scriptures.
Lets look at one of the more popular verse, (Gen 6:6 E.Sept.) which states "then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply." Now some of the later translations convey this account with the terms regret. However even with this, we do not have to work hard to draw a positive understanding of God's position on matters.
So in what sense can it be said that God "pondered it deeply" or "had regret in His heart" that he had made man? Here the Hebrew words pertains to a change of attitude or intention. Since God is perfect and cannot make mistakes, He had a change of attitude towards the wicked generation of that time. God turned His attitude as the Creator of humans to that of a destroyer over His displeasure for wickedness.
It was not the creating of humans which pained God, but the state at which his creations had fallen into and the things that were to come. As a parent, this reaction is right in line with that of a caring and loving Creator.
So does this equate an error? Not at all. The fact that God felt bad in his heart only proves that He had feelings and remained considerate of His human creations beyond the ramifications of sin. The same reasoning applies where others earned additional time and grace from God. It proves once again that God remained considerate towards his humans creations by extended them freedom of speech and reason.
Where in the bible has anyone rebuked God(personally) and lived to tell about it?
quote:
Remember: There was no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written.
Are we to conclude that Genesis was written after the fact(sin). Satan had already established himself as an opposer before the fact when he chose to oppose God in Heaven. Additionally, he was crowned with the title long before this day and it would be benign to refer to him otherwise at any point in the timeline.
Don't take this personally but your reasoning on Satan and the beast as spoken by God is a mess. Unfortunately, laying things out properly would require numerous pages of information and so out of respect for others, we will have to save this for another time and place.
Genesis gives us an interesting description... "as the voice of a stranger". The account relates that Satan approached Eve, through a serpent and spoke to her in a misleading way. Satan approached Eve indirectly, using a serpent. his dishonesty was very evident. he twisted God's words and motives and even pretended to be shocked by her response. As if he were saying "How could He be so unreasonable?" Unfortunately, Adam and Eve did not turn away from the voice of the stranger. Instead, they heeded it, and brought sin onto themselves and their offspring.
So now, how had the serpent heard of such things, which he had spoke of to Eve? Or how could a snake reason let alone speak of such things? Also, how is it that it had never before spoken to the woman’s husband Adam? How is it that it could speak with human language at all? We have no records of serpents speaking to humans, and never was it done afterwards. Eve was not imagining that someone was speaking to her. She was not speaking to herself in her own mind, just thinking. The humanlike voice seemed to come from the mouth of the serpent.
The only other voice besides that of her husband Adam that Eve had heard in the garden was that of God, but directly, not through some subhuman animal creature. According to what the serpent, to all appearances, said, the voice was not that of God. The voice asked Eve about what God had said.
So when Eve answered the question, she was far from innocent to the obvious deception of her host. Though the inquiring speaker was hiding his identity behind a visible serpent, Eve did not discern and appreciate that this serpent-using speaker was maliciously trying to deceive her. Nevertheless she made her reply and there is no reason to beleive that she was somehow fooled into thinking that snakes could suddenly talk. Let alone divulge some great discovery on how her father was a liar.
quote:
Another thing that you need to think about: When you go to a foreign country, you become an innocent.
You don't understand the new culture's opinion regarding what is right and what is wrong. Are you suddenly "below animals"? Are you saying that a human can suddenly become beneath an animal simply by crossing the border?
Again, the illustration fails to live up to the full implications of the account. While it is true that a visitor would be exempt of(most) legal implications. That same person would shed his or her ignorance upon hearing of them thus assuming his or her responsibilities in that particular land or country. Likewise, Adam and Eve though sinless, were well informed of God's divine rule and accountable for their actions. You cannot claim ignorance if you are aware of the implications of the law in question.
quote:
Everything that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] said came to pass. How is it that you can claim that he lied?
Satan told Eve that if she ate from the forbidden fruit, she would be wise like God. He also claimed that she would not die. Both statements were lies. The moment Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they received their death sentence and began to die. The fact that Eve herself admitted being deceived further illustrates that they were lied too. Every aspect of Satan's approach was a lie. He lied in his presentation, his promise and in his claims.
quote:
The text of the command that god gives Adam regarding what will happen says, quite clearly, before the sun sets on the specific, literal day that you eat of the tree, you will be physically dead. That's the only way to read the Hebrew. God is not referring to a "spiritual" death. God is not referring to some death in some nebulous time in the future. He says pretty much instantaneous demise.
When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit the following death sentence was pronounced upon him on that very same day. "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return." Accordingly, the death of Adam meant his ceasing to live, returning to the elements of lifeless dust from which he had been created.
True to his word, God handed the sentence of death upon Adam and Eve, but before executing them He permitted them to bring forth children. Call it what you will, but this seems more like a just and caring God who takes into account that Adam and Eve were not entirely responsible for the outcome of things.
The remainder of your post revolve around these arguements:
1) Adam and Eve had no concept of right and wrong.
It is logically impossible to conclude that Adam and Eve knew of God's law and would somehow not know better. Eve(the lesser vessel) new it well enough to recite it out to Satan when he confronted her. She was well educated on matters and far from ignorant.
2) Satan was not a liar
In everything that Satan said and did, he lied. He sold Eve on the premise that she would become *like God, and craftily manipulated his words to conceal the true facts. As stated earlier, everything about Satan's encounter with Eve was based on a lie.
3) God makes mistakes.
This is definitely an interesting concept. I for one would like to see more on this topic. However, since the scope of such a topic would easily consume several threads worth of information, my recommendation is to spawn a new topic in the proposed topic forum and lay out your evidence and reasoning there. I would be more than happy to share my own findings to this effect so that we can weigh the evidence.
I see no need to address the first two any further since they are clearly debunked by scriptural reasoning alone. The third aspect though, easily dealt with, would require more time and space than this topic can provide, so I chose to omit it from addressing it fully.
-
On a side note, I have taken note of a very particular phenomenon which takes place in arguments such as these. It is quite common under the veil of a failed argument that the party under threat reacts by throwing out a multitude of new arguments into the mix. I can't help but wonder if such behavior is nothing more than a reaction to detract attention from the original argument. Initially the argument was that Adam and Eve were incapable of discerning right from wrong. However when faced with scriptural evidence which clearly debunked this theory, you returned with a flood of other controversial ideas. Thought, in themselves interesting, do nothing but deter attention from the original argument.
The problem with conspiracy theories such as these, is that the entire concept is similar to a house of cards. Taking into account that one has to maintain a complex web of theories in order to uphold his or her beliefs ends up placing the theory under the constant threat of collapse.
The bottom line is, anyone can grab a bible and gather lines and verses to use as material to blame God. However, as we are all very aware, as human beings, we are capable of believing anything we want to. As it has always been, it all comes down to choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 08-26-2007 9:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2007 3:31 PM pbee has replied
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 08-29-2007 4:23 AM pbee has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 183 of 224 (418505)
08-28-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by pbee
08-27-2007 12:06 PM


pbee
pbee writes:
{1} Again your concept revolves around the assumption that Adam and Eve were incapable of reasoning the differences between good and bad.
pbee writes:
{2} So the particular knowledge indicated by the tree of good and bad involved self-determination of what is good and bad.
So if Adam and Eve were not capable of determining for themselves {self-determination} what was good and bad before eating of the tree as explained in {2} then this means that you agree that Adam and Eve were incapable of reasoning the differences between the two as is pointed out in {1}.
Did you mean to do this or do you care to backpedal some?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by pbee, posted 08-27-2007 12:06 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by pbee, posted 08-28-2007 6:05 PM sidelined has replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 184 of 224 (418517)
08-28-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by sidelined
08-28-2007 3:31 PM


Please read properly before waisting thread space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2007 3:31 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2007 6:57 PM pbee has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 185 of 224 (418521)
08-28-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by pbee
08-28-2007 6:05 PM


pbee
pbee writes:
Please read properly before waisting thread space.
Ok let us see if I owe you an apology.
You wrote in post # 182, in response to a previous post by Rrhain, this statement
Again your concept revolves around the assumption that Adam and Eve were incapable of reasoning the differences between good and bad.
As I understand it{according to Rrhain} before eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve were incapable of reasoning the difference between good and bad{evil} and that you take affront to this view.
Then in this statement,
Since God told them that it would be wrong or bad to eat of the fruit of one designated tree, conversely, obeying God was good. So the particular knowledge indicated by the tree of good and bad involved self-determination of what is good and bad.
I have highlighted the quote I previously used and as far as I can make out you are saying that eating of the fruit allows for self- determination of good and evil, If this is the case then ,again, before eating of the fruit there can be no way for them to determine on their own what constitutes good and bad{evil}
To myself, this is an agreement of what Rrhain has expressed. Perhaps ,being merely human , I have erred in my reading of this and you would be capable of kindly correcting my error?
After all, thread space being so very precious it is important that clarity be maintained, don't you agree?

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."
Thomas Carlyle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by pbee, posted 08-28-2007 6:05 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by pbee, posted 08-28-2007 8:07 PM sidelined has replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 186 of 224 (418531)
08-28-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by sidelined
08-28-2007 6:57 PM


Well now you've now waisted two posts on a dead end argument.
It has already been well established that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong. They were both well educated on the rules and consequences, and they had the freedom of choice on the matter.
The notion that Adam and Eve were somehow ignorant despite the information provided on the event is nothing short of senselessness. You can argue this until to cows come home, but unless you know of documents which precedes the existing ones, it is what it is.
There is of course the middle option, where you get to beleive whatever works for you.
Looking back through this thread, it is quite obvious that this topic has been overly discussed under the original posters topic. As a result we have ample information from which to draw conclusions from. However, if you want to completely dissect this account, my advice is to spawn a new thread dedicated to that particular topic where I would be more than happy to lay out all of my supporting data for this argument(aprox. 3 pages worth).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2007 6:57 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2007 8:54 PM pbee has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 187 of 224 (418537)
08-28-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by pbee
08-28-2007 8:07 PM


pbee
It has already been well established that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong
Since the ability to discriminate between right and wrong were not possible till they ate of the fruit{ which is the actual argument}then could you please explain why the need for the fruit if they already knew right from wrong?
Looking back through this thread, it is quite obvious that this topic has been overly discussed under the original posters topic.
I can assure you that the original poster is quiet content with this line of discussion since it relates directly to this question in the opening post.From post # 1 we have
sidelined writes:
Can God create all men with the capability of free will and obedience to him?
Since determining the point at which right and wrong were capable of being grasped by Adam and Eve directly relates to the freewill they were supposedly capable of then I fail to see how the original posters topic is being mis served.
However, if you want to completely dissect this account, my advice is to spawn a new thread dedicated to that particular topic where I would be more than happy to lay out all of my supporting data for this argument(aprox. 3 pages worth).
Since the original poster could not have a problem with this then I suggest you bring it on and walk the walk.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."
Thomas Carlyle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by pbee, posted 08-28-2007 8:07 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by pbee, posted 08-29-2007 12:59 AM sidelined has replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 188 of 224 (418568)
08-29-2007 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by sidelined
08-28-2007 8:54 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2007 8:54 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by sidelined, posted 08-29-2007 5:47 PM pbee has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 189 of 224 (418583)
08-29-2007 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by pbee
08-27-2007 12:06 PM


pbee responds to me:
quote:
Again your concept revolves around the assumption that Adam and Eve were incapable of reasoning the differences between good and bad.
Well, considering that the Bible directly says just that, I am a bit surprised that you seem to think this is an unjustified assumption.
quote:
The first human pair were not ignorant of the knowledge of good and bad.
That's not what the Bible says.
Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened
Now, why would their eyes need to be opened if they were already open?
quote:
Since God told them that it would be wrong or bad to eat of the fruit of one designated tree, conversely, obeying God was good.
That only makes sense if you already know what good and bad are. Adam and Eve don't since they haven't eaten from the tree yet.
quote:
When Satan approached Eve
Haven't we been through this already? "Satan"? Who said anything about Satan? We're talking about the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b], not the devil. The Bible directly states that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] was nothing more than a beast of the field. When the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] gets punished, it is as an animal, not a supernatural entity like the devil.
Are you saying that snakes are the offspring of the devil?
There is no such thing as the devil at the time Genesis was written. Therefore, any analysis that depends upon the fact that the information comes from the devil is necessarily flawed and invalid.
quote:
Again... how could Eve recite conditions and consequences and not know what she was saying?
Easy. She wasn't stupid. She just didn't understand good and evil. So when the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] contradicts god, how is she supposed to figure out that god is telling the truth? She has no concept of good and evil, so the idea that somebody is deliberately lying to her and being malevolent is of no help...she doesn't know what those things mean.
quote:
quote:
What was the first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the tree?
Guilt from the perversion sin had brought upon them.
That's not what the Bible says. You need to re-read Genesis 3:7. I've been deliberately not quoting it in full because I want YOU to do your own homework. I want YOU to be the one to say it. That way, I know that YOU have actually put in the effort to read what the text actually says.
That said, why on earth would they feel guilt after having eaten from the tree if they already knew good and evil? Remember, they were sinning up a storm and were not ashamed before they ate from the tree. If the Tree of Knowledge didn't actually do anything, then why was their first reaction to panic over something that was NOT having disobeyed the only command they had ever been given? Why was it something else?
quote:
Where in the bible has anyone rebuked God(personally) and lived to tell about it?
You mean you don't know? Do the names Abraham and Moses mean anything to you? When was the last time you read Genesis and/or Exodus all the way through?
quote:
quote:
Remember: There was no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written.
Are we to conclude that Genesis was written after the fact(sin).
Of course. Adam wasn't a scribe. You do recall that traditionally, the first five books of the Torah were supposed to have been written by Moses, yes?
But you're missing the bigger point: Judaism doesn't really have a concept of the devil. That's a Christian imposition. The texts of the Torah were written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context. That necessarily means that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] mentioned in the Garden of Eden was just that: A [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b]. There is no devil for it to be masquerading for or be possessed by.
quote:
The account relates that Satan approached Eve,
No, it doesn't. Satan is never mentioned. Satan appears in Job, but Satan is an agent of god in that story. Judaism doesn't really have a concept of the devil for it is a monotheistic religion: There is only god.
quote:
Genesis gives us an interesting description... "as the voice of a stranger".
No, it doesn't. The [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] is simply described as speaking. He is described as cleverer than any of the other beasts, but that's it. At no point in Genesis 3 is the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] said to be speaking "as the voice of a stranger."
quote:
So now, how had the serpent heard of such things, which he had spoke of to Eve?
We don't know. The text never says. Why does it matter? The simple fact is that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] was correct in everything he said: Adam and Eve did not die, their eyes opened, and they became as gods, knowing good and evil.
quote:
While it is true that a visitor would be exempt of(most) legal implications.
Who said anything about "legal implications"? We're talking about right and wrong and that's a question for philosophy, not jurisprudence.
It isn't illegal to be a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot (bonus points if you catch the reference), but it's wrong.
quote:
Satan told Eve
Ahem. "Satan" didn't tell Eve anything. Where in Genesis 3 do you find any reference to Satan? Direct quotations, please.
quote:
if she ate from the forbidden fruit, she would be wise like God.
No, the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] did not. The [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] said, and I quote:
Genesis 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And sure enough, that's exactly what happens:
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:
So if you're not going to believe god when he directly confirms what the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] said, who are you going to believe?
quote:
Accordingly, the death of Adam meant his ceasing to live, returning to the elements of lifeless dust from which he had been created.
And yet, Adam didn't die. He lived for nearly 1000 more years. Once again, it is seen that god lied directly to Adam.
quote:
It is logically impossible to conclude that Adam and Eve knew of God's law and would somehow not know better.
Incorrect. It is the only logical conclusion and is perfectly natural. Apes do read philosophy, pbee, they just don't understand it (more points if you catch that reference).
One says the fruit shouldn't be eaten. Another says that isn't true. How are Adam and Eve supposed to determine who is telling them the truth when they have no concept of right and wrong and thus cannot conceive of things like deception or malevolence?
quote:
It is quite common under the veil of a failed argument that the party under threat reacts by throwing out a multitude of new arguments into the mix.
Then you should stop doing it.
That said, the fact that you cannot understand how one analyses a text by showing supporting threads in surrounding context shows that you really don't have much of an argument.
I notice that in this entire discussion between the two of us, I have been the only one quoting the actual text of the Bible. And notice, too, that I do so to directly show that the claims you make regarding what the text says are not true and, in fact, the text says the exact opposite.
Why do you think that is?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by pbee, posted 08-27-2007 12:06 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by pbee, posted 08-29-2007 8:59 AM Rrhain has replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 190 of 224 (418609)
08-29-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Rrhain
08-29-2007 4:23 AM


quote:
Well, considering that the Bible directly says just that, I am a bit surprised that you seem to think this is an unjustified assumption.
False, you are *reasoning(quite poorly) that this is what the bible says. In reality it says exactly the opposite. This is what happens when people use the bible devised to suit religious enterprises. We end up dealing with convoluted and illogical arguments.
The bible says many things, but few it seems, are ever capable of understanding what it actually says. The biggest problem is that people approach the bible to satisfy the needs of religious doctrines. Unless someone is free from religious influence, it is impossible to use the bible without prejudice. Otherwise, you are blinded by your own emotional needs.
(Genesis 3:7) In this account "their eyes being opened" describes the changes which took place following the events of Adam and Eve's disobedience. They could no longer look at each other in a pure way, but apparently harbored passionate thoughts that were improper. The quality of conscience, which distinguishes humans from creatures, began to condemn them and made them feel guilty and ashamed. So they sought to conceal these body parts that roused the perverse thoughts which fed there guilty consciences. It would not be wrong for them to look at each other’s nakedness or even consider the natural and proper conduct of sex, since this was in accord with God's purpose(creating them to multiply and fill the earth). But after their sin they could no longer view this in an innocent and pure way, Their contemplations were soiled by base passion and impure sensuality. So their consciences hurt them and a sense of modesty caused them to hide their body parts, and their guilty feelings made them hide from God because of fear. Love throws out fear, but they showed they lacked love for God by disobeying him, so fear came upon them and caused a restraint and made them cover their bodies and hide. Thus they tried to escape from the condemnation of their consciences and from the pronouncement of the penalty for disobedience.
quote:
That only makes sense if you already know what good and bad are. Adam and Eve don't since they haven't eaten from the tree yet.
Precisely, this does not imply that they needed to *experience doing bad in order to know the difference. There was no need to *test bad out to understand! - All they needed to know was that eating of the fruit *was bad. Why? Because God said so! No more, no less. And this is precisely what God did. He told instructed(educated) them on what good and bad was by using the tree. Hens... it was referred to as "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad". The tree was the object used to establish the concept of good and bad for Adam and Eve.
You can circumvent the simple logic all you like. But no matter what, the accounts are very clear about this. Adam and Eve knew that eating the fruit was bad because God told them so.
quote:
Haven't we been through this already? "Satan"? Who said anything about Satan? We're talking about the SERPENT, not the devil. The Bible directly states that the SERPENT was nothing more than a beast of the field. When the SERPENT gets punished, it is as an animal, not a supernatural entity like the devil.
Are you saying that snakes are the offspring of the devil?
There is no such thing as the devil at the time Genesis was written. Therefore, any analysis that depends upon the fact that the information comes from the devil is necessarily flawed and invalid.
If a man used a horse to steal from people, would we be blaming the horse when referring to the crime? Pure nonsense. Everyone knows who was behind the snake. The snake was nothing more than an object used by Satan to guise his actions. You can balk at this all you like, it doesn't change anything. Satan was an opposer of God and although his title was given after the fact, his position was established prior to his encounter with Eve.
Who was the first angel to mount an opposition to God? Satan
Who deceived Eve? Satan
Who was talking to Eve in the Garden? none other than Satan
No more, no less.
Edited by pbee, : No reason given.
Edited by pbee, : typo's

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 08-29-2007 4:23 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 09-02-2007 2:34 AM pbee has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 191 of 224 (418660)
08-29-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by pbee
08-29-2007 12:59 AM


pbee
Since you are incapable of dealing directly with the questions raised then I am quite certain that you never will provide a proper argument for this thread that I began. Therefore I will allow you to squirm away and avoid having to make your case plain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by pbee, posted 08-29-2007 12:59 AM pbee has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 192 of 224 (419316)
09-02-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by pbee
08-29-2007 8:59 AM


pbee responds to me:
quote:
(Genesis 3:7) In this account "their eyes being opened" describes the changes which took place following the events of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
Incorrect. It describes the changes which took place following the events of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge. After all, the very first thing they panic over isn't eating from the tree, which you would think would be the most important thing.
And don't forget, Gen 3:22 has god directly stating that which the serpent said: They became as gods.
quote:
All they needed to know was that eating of the fruit *was bad. Why? Because God said so!
And how is that an answer? They didn't know what good and bad were since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Why on earth should they trust god? Trust requires knowledge of good and evil, which Adam and Eve didn't have.
quote:
Adam and Eve knew that eating the fruit was bad because God told them so.
No, they knew god said they shouldn't eat it because if they did, they would die. They also knew that the serpent said god was full of it.
And, it turns out, the serpent was right: They didn't die but became as gods.
quote:
If a man used a horse to steal from people, would we be blaming the horse when referring to the crime? Pure nonsense.
Precisely. So why was the serpent punished? The serpent wasn't the devil. The Bible directly describes the serpent as a beast. The punishment of the serpent is to lose his legs, to have children that will be hated by humans, just as if the serpent were a common animal.
Are you saying that snakes are the children of the devil?
quote:
Who was the first angel to mount an opposition to God? Satan
Oh, where to begin? Are you referring to:
Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
First, you will note that this is a reference to "Lucifer," not "Satan." "Satan" is an associate of god and does his will, or have you forgotten Job?
Second, this isn't a reference to an angel but rather to Nebuchadrezzar.
Are you referring to:
Ezekiel 28:13: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
If so, this isn't a reference to the devil but a reference to the king of Tyrus:
Ezekiel 28:12: Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
There isn't any story about fallen angels, revolts against god, or any such thing to be found in the Bible.
quote:
Who deceived Eve? Satan
Incorrect. Even assuming that Eve was deceived (which she wasn't...everything the serpent said turned out to be true), Satan had nothing to do with it. It was the SERPENT who was talking to her.
quote:
Who was talking to Eve in the Garden? none other than Satan
Again, incorrect. It was the serpent. After all, it was the serpent who was punished. And as you say, why punish the horse when it's the rider who did it?
Are you saying snakes are the descendants of the devil?
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "not."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by pbee, posted 08-29-2007 8:59 AM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by pbee, posted 09-02-2007 12:09 PM Rrhain has replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 193 of 224 (419360)
09-02-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Rrhain
09-02-2007 2:34 AM


quote:
Incorrect. It describes the changes which took place following the events of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge. After all, the very first thing they panic over isn't eating from the tree, which you would think would be the most important thing.
Did God forbid Adam and Eve from eating of the tree? Yes (the scriptures say that)
Did they disobey Him? Yes (the scriptures say that)
The statement is not incorrect, your understanding of the scriptures are incorrect. (there is a difference)
quote:
And how is that an answer? They didn't know what good and bad were since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Why on earth should they trust god? Trust requires knowledge of good and evil, which Adam and Eve didn't have.
Do the scriptures not say; (Gen 2:16,17) And [3gave charge 1the lord 2God] to Adam, saying, From all of a tree of the one in the paradise [2food 1you shall eat], but from the tree of the knowing good and evil, you shall not eat from it; but in whatever day you should eat from it, to death you shall die.
trust /tr‘st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[truhst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, -noun
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
6. the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.
7. charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone's trust.
8. something committed or entrusted to one's care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.
9. Law.
a. a fiduciary relationship in which one person (the trustee) holds the title to property (the trust estate or trust property) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary).
b. the property or funds so held.
10. Commerce.
a. an illegal combination of industrial or commercial companies in which the stock of the constituent companies is controlled by a central board of trustees, thus making it possible to manage the companies so as to minimize production costs, control prices, eliminate competition, etc.
b. any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity or service.
11. Archaic. reliability.
-adjective
12. Law. of or pertaining to trusts or a trust.
-verb (used without object)
13. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually fol. by in or to): to trust in another's honesty; trusting to luck.
14. to have confidence; hope: Things work out if one only trusts.
15. to sell merchandise on credit.
-verb (used with object)
16. to have trust or confidence in; rely or depend on.
17. to believe.
18. to expect confidently; hope (usually fol. by a clause or infinitive as object): trusting the job would soon be finished; trusting to find oil on the land.
19. to commit or consign with trust or confidence.
20. to permit to remain or go somewhere or to do something without fear of consequences: He does not trust his children out of his sight.
21. to invest with a trust; entrust with something.
22. to give credit to (a person) for goods, services, etc., supplied: Will you trust us till payday?
”Verb phrase
23. trust to, to rely on; trust: Never trust to luck!
”Idiom
24. in trust, in the position of being left in the care or guardianship of another: She left money to her uncle to keep in trust for her children.
Trust does not require knowledge of good and evil(as you implied). Why would they not trust there own father? In fact... Adam and Eve had every reason to trust their Creator since God not only proved that He was a loving and creator but that he was looking out for there well being also.
God did not simply present A&E with choices A & B saying you are free to choose. He promoted choice A and forbid choice B. With this in mind, Adam and Eve were educated and well aware of the distinctions between good and bad. Option A was good(as God said) and option B was bad as God said *YOU MUST NO EAT from it! or you will most positively die. Disobeying God = BAD, Dying = bad.
Notice in the beginning of verse 17 it says " you shall not eat from it". This statement alone proves that God forbid them to eat it. Otherwise they would be in contempt of God's word. In your own argument you continue to claim that they were unaware of the responsibilities. However the scriptures state exactly the opposite.
Your argument is now a manifestation of your own beliefs and not of the scriptures. Furthermore, trying to convince someone(anyone) that breaching a law with a death sentence is somehow good, is pure nonsense.
quote:
No, they knew god said they shouldn't eat it because if they did, they would die. They also knew that the serpent said god was full of it.
And, it turns out, the serpent was right: They didn't die but became as gods.
I rest my case.
quote:
Precisely. So why was the serpent punished? The serpent wasn't the devil. The Bible directly describes the serpent as a beast. The punishment of the serpent is to lose his legs, to have children that will be hated by humans, just as if the serpent were a common animal.
Are you saying that snakes are the children of the devil?
The serpent(as described in the scriptures) was not the lowly snake but the one who used it.
quote:
saiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! First, you will note that this is a reference to "Lucifer," not "Satan." "Satan" is an associate of god and does his will, or have you forgotten Job? Second, this isn't a reference to an angel but rather to Nebuchadrezzar.
Are you referring to: Ezekiel 28:13: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
If so, this isn't a reference to the devil but a reference to the king of Tyrus: Ezekiel 28:12: Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
There isn't any story about fallen angels, revolts against god, or any such thing to be found in the Bible.
The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God. When saying that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth", Jesus indicated that at one time that one was "in the truth." (John 8:44) But, as is true of all of God’s intelligent creatures, this spirit son was endowed with free will. He abused his freedom of choice, allowed feelings of self-importance to develop in his heart, began to crave worship that belonged only to God, and so enticed Adam and Eve to listen to him rather than obey God. Thus by his course of action he made himself Satan, which means "adversary".
quote:
Incorrect. Even assuming that Eve was deceived (which she wasn't...everything the serpent said turned out to be true), Satan had nothing to do with it. It was the SERPENT who was talking to her.
(Genesis 3:12,13)"... the woman replied "The serpent it deceived me and so I ate".
quote:
Again, incorrect. It was the serpent. After all, it was the serpent who was punished. And as you say, why punish the horse when it's the rider who did it? Are you saying snakes are the descendants of the devil?
Snakes have nothing to do with the devil. God’s referred to His opposer, Satan, as "the original serpent", evidently because of his employing the literal serpent in Eden as his means of communication with the woman. (Ge 3:1-15) As "the original serpent", he was also the progenitor in a spiritual sense of other opposers; Hence Jesus' classification of such ones as "serpents, offspring of vipers". (Mt 23:33)(John 8:44)(1John 3:12)
You claim(incorrect) may times only to present your own claims in complete opposition with the scriptures. In a struggle between your own claims and the scriptures, I choose the scriptures.
Edited by pbee, : typo's
Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 09-02-2007 2:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by pelican, posted 09-04-2007 1:58 AM pbee has replied
 Message 196 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2007 3:10 AM pbee has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 194 of 224 (419658)
09-04-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by pbee
09-02-2007 12:09 PM


Hi I am new to this forum and I suppose I am 'a don't know' but thought that the bible was meant to be mostly symbolic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by pbee, posted 09-02-2007 12:09 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by pbee, posted 09-04-2007 2:12 AM pelican has not replied

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 195 of 224 (419661)
09-04-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by pelican
09-04-2007 1:58 AM


The scriptures(biblical) come under both forms. In most cases, where accounts are concerned, we are looking at historical records. However, it is impossible to apply one given set of standards and expect to accurately interpret the bible.
They key it would seem is to try and obtain as much historical and supporting data on the scripture in question. Chances are, you will find sufficient information(validated) through past research to obtain a credible interpretation.
I hope this is not sounding too confusing, but I could not think of a simpler way to say it.
Edited by pbee, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by pelican, posted 09-04-2007 1:58 AM pelican has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024