How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

I don't want to add anything. I paraphrased what your explanation boiled down to.You say god meant "within a thousand years" when he said "on that day". Adam and Eve were already meant to die (see Genesis 3:22), so basically what god told them was: "You will die in the period of time you were already going to die in anyway". Which isn;t much of a threat.Remeber, it is you who syas this, not me. I say god meant "that day" and that didn't happen.

That's too bad. I rather enjoyed our conversation. Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? I never said that. I said that you don't know what god meant when he said that if he used the word Yom. It could mean any humber of things, including that portion of the day when it is light. How do you know god didn't mean that? And in case he meant "an undefined portion of time" then it's not really a threat now is it? I really don't get what you're getting at here. Are you seriously suggesting dogs experience time slower then we humans do? That would be some breakthrough in physics. They knew what the consequence was (death, that day), they just didn't understand it. Basically, yes. Adam and Eve didn't die that day, like god said they would. They did gain knowledge of good and evil, like the snake said they would. And since Jews don;t know any satan, it would be very weird for the snake to be him. More sarcasm Peg? Too bad, I'd rather have you see things from our side. I understand your side. You've been told this is the case, and you faith means a kot to you, so you will twist and turn so you can hold on to that. I think that's a bit silly, but that's the way this stuff works, I guess.

So I ask you once again:Would it help if Rrhain told you beetaratagang was good and clerendipity was bad, and I told you clerendipity was good and beetaratagang was bad?Now you have the same info Adam and Eve had. One person has told you the one thing is bad, the other has said the opposite.

Yeah, probably.Anyway, Peg, I enjoyed this discussion, thank you for it.

But how do you know you should be obedient to god? You don't know he is good, you lack that knowledge. Actually no. I fear this will open a whole new can of worms, but I don't follow the rules because I live under their governance. In fact, there are rules I break regularly. I follow the rules because of the consequneces to other people when I don't. This is also why I break some rules. Crossing a red light, for example, when there is no traffic whatsoever. It's forbidden by law, yet I do it anyway, simply becasue there are no consequences to other people. No, I would do what I do now. Because I understand good and evil, thanks to Adam and Eve! The legal consequences are not why I follow these rules, the societal consequences are. Actually, no it isn't. They shouldn't do stuff simply because god has told them not to. Not becuase of consequences for others, not because of consequences to themselves, simply because the whim of god has determined it to be so. That's not a basis I would follow anybody under. Turns out the tranger was right, the legal penalties didn't apply. And look at what she gave us humans! I now can decide what is good and evil! It allows me to follow rules because of the consequences to other people, becuase I know harming them is evil. I thank them to this day for their choice! They don't know this. They can't see that what he is doing is "good". They don't know why he does this! That's the point. From their perspective it is one person telling them one thing and another telling them the opposite. Again, they don't know this. They can't see the snake is evil! They don't know. They essentially see two neutral persons telling them opposite things. They also have no idea that anything they could do is evil. They can't conceive of it. NO! That's the point! I would know there's something amiss here, but I have knowledge of good and evil! They didn't. They see a neutral person making one claim, and another making the opposite. How are they to know who tells the truth. Nevermind that it was the snake. Just like you can't determine whether Rrhain is telling you the truth when he says clerendipity is bad, and I say clerendipity is good. You have no idea which one of us is right. That's the point we're trying to convey to you. Without the knowledge of good and evil (or if Rrhain or me is telling you the truth), you have no way of knowing what the right choice is! How do you know snakes weren't supposed to talk? How do you know no other animals talked? There's nothing in genesis that says other animals couldn;t talk. Also, Eve apparently isn't the least bit surprised the snake begins to talk to her. So, either yes she is a dimwit, or snakes/animals talking wasn't really that weird in Eden.

A fine. But that's not the point, the point is I'll run the risk of getting a fine if there is nobody I could hurt with my actions. In other words, the fine is not the reason I follow th laws. Neither is the fact I will go to jail for murder stopping me from murdering anyone, it's because of the consequences to other people that I don't murder anyone. Yes. And because I know what good and evil are. Not according to genesis 3:22. That clearly states Adam and Eve are not immortal i.e. they will die. In fact, everybody dies, I know of no one that is immortal, whetehr he follows god or not. I care to much for my independence, so sorry, not gonna happen. They would've died anyway. But regardless, sure, if there are portions of mankind that aren't happy, they're free to change that. That portion should stop making the rest that is happy with that choice follow their rules, though. Ok, fair enough. Don't expect me to follow those laws though (unless, of course I already agree with them, I won;t not follow a rule just becuase god says it's a rule). Each to his own, eh? So, basically, might makes right? I Don't like that concept too much. Eternal life looks rather boring to me. I'd rather make the most of this one with my friends and loved ones, and die in the end knowing I've had a good life. Maybe to keep them from "tempting" us into more "bad" things? In any case, neither of us knows. From Eve's reaction though there are two possible conclusions, like I said. Either she was a "dimwit", or animals could speak in Eden.

That's not what the text says though. It implies they never were meant to live forever as originally created. Nowhere does it say that after they have eaten from the tree they became mortal, nor does it say anywhere they were immortal before they ate from the tree. Well yes, the opportunity was there, but only after eating from the tree, meaning they weren't created immortal. Not according to the text. The text clearly says the trees grant these things. Not in that situation, no, but only as long as that situation will last. If he were to say, you'll have to do what I say forever I'd try to find my own way out. Also, if there were two persons telling me opposite thigns, I wouldn;t know which one to trust if I didn't know them either, or lacking any other clues as to their sincerity. The bolded part is the important part. Of course certain situations require dependance, eternal dependace however? No thanks! Like the "Thou shalt not kill" law? Oh yes, he holds to that one marvelously, doesn't he? That's not what the bible says! Poor Job! If you choose it, yes. If you choose to live dependant on him however, be prepaired to kowtow to his every whim. I'm sad for them. I've seen three of my four grandparents die. One (a devout christian, though I don't know if that is relevant) clung on to his life no matter what, his death wasn't pretty, and involved a lot of pain, he didn;t look very happy when he died. The other two were at peace with their coming deaths, we had a big family meeting a month or so before they died, and they both were like "it's been a good life, I'm greatful I got to see the family as a whole again one last time, it's time to leave now". Of course people were sad, but that's not a sad way to go in my eyes. In fact, it's much like the end I prefer. They looked very peaceful and at ease when they finally passed. If I died right now, I'd be happy for the life I've had. I'd be sad about some things that I would've liked to have done, but now, at 28, I'm perfectly happy with the life I've had so far. So, I repeat, even if I died right now, I would be at peace with that. I'd rather not, but there's precious little I can do about that, right? Oh yes, which is why I try to make the most out of it. I didn't say a longer life would seem unpleasant to me, and thanks to science, I get to live twice as long as people 200 years ago. hink about that! Twice as long to enjoy life! Wow!. An eternal one however? I'd be bored out of my skull somewhere in that eternal time, and then I'd still have an eternity ahead of me. No thanks. Yes, that's unfortunate, but wanting an eternal life instead of that, I'd still say no. And who knows what scientific advances will bring us in terms of lifespand lengthening. More reason not to let the snake near her then. Paul wasn;t there though, was he? Anyway, let's not go down that road. Youcan't be deceived if you don;t know the difference between good and evil. All statements are equal to you then.

Yes, because he was afraid they would gain immortality, meaning they didn't have that. In short, they weren't created immortal. What if they had eaten from the tree of life first, and then from the tree of knowledge? What kind of thread would god have made then, for according to the text, they would then have become completely as god. His threat makes no sense, unless he actually meant that they would die that day. They didn't however. I could ask how you know this, but you're probably gonna say that it says that they can eat freely from every tree in the garden. Ok fair enough. Now, first of all, this means they were indeed not created immortal (thank you for admitting that). Second, why, if god wanted them to live forever so badly, didn;t he create them immortal, or at least make them eat from the tree first. And third, what if they had eaten from that tree first? Then god's threat would've made no sense. That's what you say. Nothing in the text says this. Yes, like the flood. That was symbolic for the fact you should always listen to god (or rather, as is more likely, to the dude saying he is speaking for god!). Look, if you're gonna decide what is symbolic and what isn't, then why bother with any literal interpretation? Again, so you say. There's nothing in the text that says this though. It's a nice explanation. But then, I can say that the whole creation story is symbolic for the fact god created everything, and what explains the current state of the world. Why stop at just the trees? No no no no NO! You still don't get it, do you? Adam and eve didn't know these things were a good thing to do for them! That's the whole point. Let me see if I can reflect their mindset. "Hey, there's this dude bringin us food...Whatever" ; "Hey, there's this dude giving us shelter from the rain.... Whatever" ; "Hey there's this dude telling us not to eat from this tree... And there's another dude telling us we can eat from that tree.... Whatever, let's eat". I hope this clears it up.To sum it up: Adam and Eve had no idea that what god was doing was good for them, nor that he was a good person for doing this for them. To them god and the snake were equals, complete and utter equals, for they could not comprehend what god was doing was good for them. How could they, they didn't know anything about good and evil. But how would they know? So, more might makes right then? Do as I say, not as I do? Great examples he sets then. Really Peg, justice? Killing the first born of egypt, many of whom would've been babies, maybe even just born, that's your idea of justice? The same with the flood. The same with all the genocide he commanded? Thank god you don't get to decide that then. I find this no form of "justice" that's just plain malevolance. At least this is a better look at death than some other christians. They'd tell me I'd get to live forever anyway, but would be tortured for that time. I like your outlook better. But like I said, to each his own.

But that's still not what the text says. No matter how much you think this is the case, the text clearly says the trees themselves grant these powers. For the same reason he put the tree of knowledge (a tree he certainly didn't want them to eat from) there. He is either a) Incompetent or b) setting them up. He still did it with the tree of knowledge. I usually distinguish between immortal and eternal. Immortals live forever, but can die (if that makes sense). Eternals will exist forever.Anyway, that's not the point here. Adam and Eve were not created to live forever (and thus, meant to die), as is clear from the text.

Because most people (as you have alluded to), will find living forever a great prospect to look forward to. Promise them a reward they will definately want, and they will follow. Of course, make sure the award can never be obtained within their own lifetime. Tell them it will be i the future, long after they and you have died. If you jut live how we tell you to, then when the time finally arives, you get to live forever!

Nope, that's in there. I don't agree with that. You can't impose stuff witten centuries after genesis upon genesis. Which is why I don't claim they had free will. In fact I contend no one has free will, but that's a different topic. Not neccesarily, he could've given mankind that "choice" long after Adam and Eve. But let's go with the assumption they did have free choice. A prospect, yes. which makes god's threat even weirder. "You will positively die that day" makes no sense if the one you are saying it to is already living forever, or meant to live forever. They could've been living forever, had they eaten from the tree of life first, then god would've had a aproblem, because there's apparently nothing he can do about that to change it. Which makes it even weirder to put both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life within Adam and Eve's grasp. Think of the devastating consequences for god if they had first eaten from the tree of life, and then, before god could intervee eaten from the tree of knowledge, they would've been like god then. That's why I maintian that either god was a) incompetent or b) setting them up with the tree of knowledge,.