Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 227 (555541)
04-14-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Peg
04-13-2010 1:45 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
I have already explained numerous times that Adam and eve were told where eating from the tree would lead them. I've provided the scripture which clearly states it....'you will positively die'
Nobody denies this.
But you're ignoring that you have another person saying that no, you won't die. The scripture clearly states it: "Ye shall not surely die."
So how are Adam and Eve supposed to know what to believe?
One of them is saying eating from the tree is beetaratagang. The other is saying it is clerendipity.
Well, you're not stupid. You know the consequences. Should you choose the beetaratagang option or the clerendipity option?
quote:
He is not telling me what the consequences of either option will be.
Yes, I have. One will give you damnation. The other will give you salvation.
Oh! You want to know which is which before you make the decision. Sorry, but that requires you eat from the tree. After you eat from the tree, then I'll let you know if eating from the tree was beetaratagang or clerendipity. But until you do, all you get is the choice.
Which do you choose?
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
If he wants to make this a fair challenge, then in like manner, he needs to provide the consequences before i can make a choice.
I already have: Damnation and salvation. If you want to know which is which, you'll have to eat from the tree.
quote:
If he cannot do that, then his question is nothing more then a philosophical mind game.
So close! If you think the choice I'm asking you to make is a "philosophical mind game," what on earth do you think the choice was for Adam and Eve? They were asked to choose between good and evil when they didn't know what good and evil were.
Yeah, god told them they would die. So? What does that mean to someone who doesn't know what good and evil are? Is dying good or bad? Wouldn't dying mean they'd be with god in their eternal reward? What could be better? So why not eat from the tree and get to heaven that much faster? And why would becoming as gods be bad? The fruit brings wisdom and surely there's nothing wrong with fulfilling one's complete potential, right?
You're assuming that which you're trying to prove. Adam and Eve don't understand what good and evil are and yet they are being asked to make a choice between good and evil. You don't understand what beetaratagang and clerendipity are and yet you are being asked to make a choice between them.
If you think it's ridiculous to ask it of you, how could it possibly have been fair to ask it of Adam and Eve?
quote:
Adam and Eve were not left in the dark with regard to the consequences of eating from the tree.
Neither have you. You know that one will lead you damnation while the other will lead you to salvation. If you want to know which is which, you'll have to eat from the tree first.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
No one seems to accept that yet even though it is clearly stated in the passage.
Incorrect. We all accept it. What you are refusing to accept is that someone else contradicted what god said.
So how are Adam and Eve supposed to know to listen to god? That requires they know what "good" is which they don't because they haven't eaten from the tree yet.
Just as you haven't eaten from the tree yet to let you know which of beetaratagang and clerendipity leads to salvation and which leads to damnation. You understand the consequences, but you don't understand the relationship just as Adam and Eve understood the consequences (they weren't stupid) but didn't understand the relationship.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Peg, posted 04-13-2010 1:45 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 5:36 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 198 of 227 (555542)
04-14-2010 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
04-14-2010 5:31 AM


Rrhain writes:
Yes, I have. One will give you damnation. The other will give you salvation.
Oh! You want to know which is which before you make the decision. Sorry, but that requires you eat from the tree. After you eat from the tree, then I'll let you know if eating from the tree was beetaratagang or clerendipity.
yet God told them eating would lead to death
So, unlike me, they knew which one would lead to evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 5:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 6:59 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 199 of 227 (555544)
04-14-2010 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Peg
04-14-2010 5:24 AM


Peg writes:
im talking about legal consequences. We get issued a fine if we are caught running red lights. What do you get if you are caught?
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.
either way it doesnt matter...there are consequences and you obey because you dont want those consequences.
Yes. And because I know what good and evil are.
thats fair enough, you have the right to make that decision. However the decision to be independent of God is what leads to death.
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.
So if you wanted to avoid death, you would need choose dependence and obedience.
I care to much for my independence, so sorry, not gonna happen.
They chose independence and it led to death for all mankind but not all mankind are happy with their decision.
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.
I would rather live forever therefore i choose dependence on Gods laws.
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?
He is the lawmaker because he is the creator and in the position of the universal sovereign, this gives him the right to make laws and me as a subject have an obligation to obey him.
So, basically, might makes right? I Don't like that concept too much.
doing so leads to life which is a much better prospect then death.
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.
Lets look at it logically.
Do any animals today have the ability for human language? Can they speak a human language?
No they cant. But lets say they did, why would God later remove the ability to speak human language from them?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 5:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 7:04 AM Huntard has replied

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


Message 200 of 227 (555545)
04-14-2010 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Peg
04-14-2010 2:24 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
i just cant be bothered anymore
All you have to do is answer the question and we can move on.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
a hebrew yom means 24 hours specifically
In general, yes. But, like English use of the word "day," you can indicate indefinite periods of time, but only if you phrase it in the right way. In English, we say, "in the day" to indicate an indefinite period of time. But, if we were to say, "You'll be gone for a day," we don't mean longer than 24 hours.
Hebrew works the same way. "Yom" can be used to indicate indefinite periods of time, but only if it is phrased in a specific way. Genesis 2:17 does not use any phrasing to indicate an indefinite period of time but instead uses phrasing specifically indicating a literal, 24-hour day. When Adam was told that he would die on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge, it means before the sun sets.
Of course, your justification of using New Testament scriptures has a problem: It's in Greek. Thus, you cannot apply it to Hebrew texts.
quote:
a dog year is exactly the same as a human year
Well, of course. There is no question about that. A year is a year is a year. A day is not as 100 years to a mayfly. It's a day.
quote:
Adam and eve had no idea what the consequences of eating from the tree would be
No, they understood the consequences. What they didn't understand is if those consequences would be good or bad because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote:
and the serpant is not satan
Since Judaism has no concept of the devil, this is obvious by simple inspection.
quote:
as John says
John doesn't say that. Misquoting text doesn't help your cause.
quote:
it was simply a talking snake who spoke the truth and Adam and eve did not die.
That's what the text says.
quote:
Great. Glad that you've all set me straight... i feel so enlightened.
We cannot control your feelings. But if you would simply answer the question, we might be able to move on:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 2:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 7:31 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 201 of 227 (555546)
04-14-2010 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Peg
04-14-2010 3:39 AM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
No, they were clearly told that eating from the tree would bring death. You are not giving me the same consideration.
Huh? What part of "damnation" do you not understand?
Too, they were also clearly told that eating from the tree would not bring death. What part of "salvation" do you not understand?
So you're in the same position Adam and Eve are in. One choice will lead to your salvation while the other will lead to your damnation. The problem is, you don't know which is which because that knowledge requires understanding good and evil which you don't understand yet because you haven't eaten from the tree.
quote:
you can keep asking as much as you like, but until you answer my question i will not answer. What are the consequences of each?
I've already told you: Salvation and damnation.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 3:39 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 202 of 227 (555548)
04-14-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Peg
04-14-2010 4:24 AM


Peg responds to Huntard:
quote:
don't you see that this is why the tree of knowledge was a test of obedience and dependence on Gods soverignty as opposed to a tree that imparted special knowledge?
That's not what the text says.
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
You seem to be very adept at switching from literal interpretations and metaphorical ones. The text indicates a literal impartation of special knowledge.
Remember, they were sinning up a storm as they were running around naked without any shame:
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
And as soon as they eat from the tree, the very first thing they panic over is not their disobedience of god, but the fact that they are naked:
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Even god understands this. When Adam tells them that they're naked, god's first question is to ask: Who told you? Why would that even cross his mind if being naked weren't a sin? Nobody would have thought of that, so who is this "who" that god is inquiring about?
Genesis 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And if there were no special knowledge imparted from the tree, if it were simply a question of Adam and Eve making up their own morality, what does the timing of the tree have to do with anything? Why would their first act of moral pontificating be to eat from the tree? Why wouldn't it be shame over nakedness? Why would god even think to ask about the tree if it couldn't change Adam and Eve?
quote:
Lets bring the example closer to home: your government sets up rules, you obey those rules because you live under their governance. But now along comes someone from another country and tells you that the legal penalties will not be applied if you break the law, so what do you do?
I'm sorry...what are these terms "country," "government," "rules," and "law" you mention? I haven't eaten from the tree of state yet and so I don't know what the difference between "citizen" and "alien" is.
quote:
Along comes a stranger
"Stranger"? Who said the serpent was a stranger? It's described as the most intelligent beast around. Why do you assume Adam and Eve don't know it?
quote:
She goes ahead and breaks the law without consulting anyone.
And why would she? What possible resources does she have to let her make a choice between good and evil when she hasn't eaten from the tree yet and thus doesn't understand what good and evil are?
quote:
To make a choice not only do we need to know the consequences (as Adam and Eve did)
Which you also know: Salvation and damnation. Are you saying you don't know what those are?
quote:
we also need to know the person who gave us the choice in the first place.
What is that going to tell you? That depends upon you knowing the difference between good and evil which you don't because you haven't eaten from the tree yet.
One entity told them they would die. The other entity told them they wouldn't. The former is an incompetent fool. The other is the most intelligent creature around.
Why should Adam and Eve listen to the fool?
quote:
If that person had always been our protector and provider and had never left us without and his word was always truthful
Who on earth is this person you're referring to? It certainly isn't god. God didn't protect them (he left the tree of knowledge in the garden where they could get to it) nor did he provide for them (Adam had to till the ground for food). Adam was left absolutely alone.
And on top of it: God directly and specifically lied to Adam. Eating of the tree would not cause them to die.
quote:
unlike a strange talking snake whom noone had ever seen before and especially with the knowledge that animals don't usually talk.
Huh? Where is the text that says the snake was a stranger that nobody had ever seen before?
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
In fact, Adam and specifically met the serpent before:
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Adam knows the snake because Adam named the snake.
And where do you find the text that says the animals in the garden didn't talk? After all, if it was so bizarre for animals to talk, why does Eve not find this to be unusual? Well, the snake is the smartest creature around...maybe that's the sign: It talks. So why wouldn't Eve listen to it?
quote:
You would have to know that something wasnt right about that whole situation, wouldnt you?
I'm sorry...what is this "right" that you mention? I haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet so I don't know right from wrong.
quote:
Or should we assume that A&E were dimwits who had no idea that snakes couldnt really talk?
No, we should understand that Adam and Eve were not stupid and that you are assuming that snakes couldn't talk.
The snake is not the only animal that talks in the Bible. And when the ass talks to Balaam, he doesn't find it bizarre in any way.

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 4:24 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 203 of 227 (555549)
04-14-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Peg
04-14-2010 4:50 AM


Peg avoids the question yet again.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One leads you to salvation, the other to damnation. Which do you choose?
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
All they knew up until that point was good.
No, they were sinning up a storm:
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
They just didn't know they were sinning because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote:
They were perfect beings in perfect harmony with their creator.
Clearly not or they wouldn't have had to be told not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They would already have known.
Too, god knows they were sinning up a storm because when he finds out that they know they're naked, god's first reaction is to think somebody told them. But who could have possibly told them being naked was a sin if being naked wasn't a sin? There isn't anybody who thinks that, so there's nobody to tell them. So why would god think somebody had?
quote:
They didnt need to 'know' good, they WERE good.
They were sinners.
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
And the first thing they panic over upon learning good and evil is the fact that they're naked.
quote:
And they did know 'evil'...they knew eating from the tree WAS evil.
Why? Because god told them? Why should they believe god? They don't know what good and evil are, so they have no basis to think god is a more trustworthy source of information than the snake.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One entity says one while the other entity says the other. Which do you choose?
quote:
That is what evil was...disobeying Gods commands was evil.
But they don't know that until after they eat from the tree.
You're trying to game the system. You're trying to give Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil before they have eaten from the tree when the text specifically says that they don't learn what good and evil are until after:
Genesis That is what evil was...disobeying Gods commands was evil.
Even god knows that the defining moment was them actually eating from the tree and having their eyes opened:
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:
If you're going to misquote the text, it isn't going to help your argument.
quote:
Thats why, after they ate, they 'knew' evil...they had brought evil upon themselves and thereby experienced it...they knew it.
So why isn't the first thing they panic over their disobedience to god regarding eating from the tree? If the only thing that's a sin you are aware of is that you're not supposed to eat from the tree, wouldn't the first and only thing you panic over after you learn what good and evil are is that you ate from the tree?
But it isn't. No, the very first thing they panic over is that they're naked. But according to you, that isn't a sin, so why do they even care? Ah, but even god knows it's a sin because he immediately recongizes that their shame over being naked is because they finally understand good and evil.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 4:50 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 204 of 227 (555550)
04-14-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Peg
04-14-2010 4:24 AM


don't you see that this is why the tree of knowledge was a test of obedience and dependence on Gods soverignty as opposed to a tree that imparted special knowledge?
Peg, darlin': It is your Book that tells us the opposite! Why won't you read it?

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 4:24 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 205 of 227 (555554)
04-14-2010 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Peg
04-14-2010 5:36 AM


Peg avoids the question yet again:
quote:
yet God told them eating would lead to death
Yet, the snake told them eating would not lead to death.
So you're in the same position as Adam and Eve are. So please answer the question:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
Hint: Is dying a good thing or an evil thing? How does not make that determination without knowing what good and evil are?
quote:
So, unlike me, they knew which one would lead to evil.
Who said death was evil? Who said knowledge was evil? And even if they did, how would you know that since you don't know what "evil" means?
You know the consequences: Salvation or damnation. If you want to know which is which, you have to eat from the tree.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 5:36 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 206 of 227 (555555)
04-14-2010 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Huntard
04-14-2010 5:52 AM


Huntard writes:
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.
this only became the mandate AFTER he had eaten. So logically, if he had never eaten that mandate would never have come into effect.
And the fact that there was another tree called the 'tree of life' is just further evidence that the opportunity for them was always eternal life. It was a symbolic tree just as the tree of knowledge was symbolic.
Huntard writes:
I care to much for my independence, so sorry, not gonna happen.
Imagine yourself hanging off the edge of a cliff. You're holding on for your life and someone comes along and says, you have to do exactly as i say if you want to get your feet back on solid ground.
Will you ignore him in the name of independence?
There is nothing wrong with dependence...its not a weakness or a disadvantage...in some circumstances, its a lifesaver.
Huntard writes:
So, basically, might makes right? I Don't like that concept too much.
in human terms, no. Might tends to lead to corruption and abuse. But God never abuses his authority, he lives by his own laws and is completely incorruptible. He will never abuse his power. The fact that independence has been permitted for so long is evidence of that.
Huntard writes:
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.
You know what most of the elderly people who have lived full lives say before they die?
"I'm not ready to go yet"
If you feel that your ok about dieing, can you give us a date for the day that you would be happy to die? I dont know how old you are right now, but if you are 50, would you be happy dieing in 30 years from today?
You have to admit that its a pretty short life we live. Our working lives only amount to about 40-50 years. Some scientists have got to the end of their lives and their 'lifework' was still incomplete...and thats just studying one subject.
Huntard writes:
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.
or alternatively, she was naive. She was the youngest of Gods creations and she was of a submissive nature....this would make her a little naive surely.
Also, we have the understanding from the Apostle Paul that she was completely 'decieved'... unlike Adam who was not decieved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 5:52 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 7:51 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 207 of 227 (555558)
04-14-2010 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Rrhain
04-14-2010 5:52 AM


Rrhain writes:
But, like English use of the word "day," you can indicate indefinite periods of time, but only if you phrase it in the right way. In English, we say, "in the day" to indicate an indefinite period of time. But, if we were to say, "You'll be gone for a day," we don't mean longer than 24 hours.
Hebrew works the same way.
it doesnt work the same way.
They are completely different languages with completely different gramatical structures. Its just that you are reading the verse from an english translation so to you it seems that the gramatics are the same because thats how the english interpreters have rendered the verse...thats what translators do.
Here are some examples of how the hebrew grammar is FAR different to our english:
[b]?למי הוא אמר [leˈmi hu aˈmaʁ?], literally "To-whom he told?",
means "Whom did he tell?"
פנה אליי איזשהו אדם שביקש שאעזור לו עם דבר-מה [paˈna eˈlaj ˈezeʃehu aˈdam, ʃe-biˈkeʃ ʃe-eeˈzor lo im dvar-ˈma], literally "Turned to-me some man that-asked that-[I]-will-help to-him with something",
means "A man came to me wanting me to help him with something."
הייתה סיבה שביקשתי [hajˈta siˈba ʃe-biˈkaʃti], literally "Was reason that-[I]-asked",
means "There was a reason I asked."
הבן שלו הוא האבא שלה [haˈben ʃeˈlo hu ha-ˈaba ʃeˈlah], literally "the-son of-his he the-father of-hers",
means "his son is her father."[/b]
Rrhain writes:
Of course, your justification of using New Testament scriptures has a problem: It's in Greek. Thus, you cannot apply it to Hebrew texts.
The verses we are discussing are from the hebrew text...not the NT.
Rrhain writes:
Since Judaism has no concept of the devil, this is obvious by simple inspection.
So whats with the book of Job?
Quite a lengthy discussion in there about the Devil... do you deny that Job is a book of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 5:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rrhain, posted 04-15-2010 4:48 AM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 208 of 227 (555561)
04-14-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Peg
04-14-2010 7:04 AM


Peg writes:
this only became the mandate AFTER he had eaten. So logically, if he had never eaten that mandate would never have come into effect.
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.
And the fact that there was another tree called the 'tree of life' is just further evidence that the opportunity for them was always eternal life.
Well yes, the opportunity was there, but only after eating from the tree, meaning they weren't created immortal.
It was a symbolic tree just as the tree of knowledge was symbolic.
Not according to the text. The text clearly says the trees grant these things.
Imagine yourself hanging off the edge of a cliff. You're holding on for your life and someone comes along and says, you have to do exactly as i say if you want to get your feet back on solid ground.
Will you ignore him in the name of independence?
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.
There is nothing wrong with dependence...its not a weakness or a disadvantage...in some circumstances, its a lifesaver.
The bolded part is the important part. Of course certain situations require dependance, eternal dependace however? No thanks!
in human terms, no. Might tends to lead to corruption and abuse. But God never abuses his authority, he lives by his own laws and is completely incorruptible.
Like the "Thou shalt not kill" law? Oh yes, he holds to that one marvelously, doesn't he?
He will never abuse his power.
That's not what the bible says! Poor Job!
The fact that independence has been permitted for so long is evidence of that.
If you choose it, yes. If you choose to live dependant on him however, be prepaired to kowtow to his every whim.
You know what most of the elderly people who have lived full lives say before they die?
"I'm not ready to go yet"
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 you feel that your ok about dieing, can you give us a date for the day that you would be happy to die? I dont know how old you are right now, but if you are 50, would you be happy dieing in 30 years from today?
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?
You have to admit that its a pretty short life we live.
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.
Our working lives only amount to about 40-50 years. Some scientists have got to the end of their lives and their 'lifework' was still incomplete...and thats just studying one subject.
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.
or alternatively, she was naive. She was the youngest of Gods creations and she was of a submissive nature....this would make her a little naive surely.
More reason not to let the snake near her then.
Also, we have the understanding from the Apostle Paul that she was completely 'decieved'... unlike Adam who was not decieved.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 7:04 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 8:17 PM Huntard has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 209 of 227 (555667)
04-14-2010 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Huntard
04-14-2010 7:51 AM


Huntard writes:
Well yes, the opportunity was there, but only after eating from the tree, meaning they weren't created immortal.
No, it was only after eating from the tree of knowledge that God prevented them from eating of the tree of life.
If they never had eaten from the first tree, the 2nd tree would have been freely available to them.
Huntard writes:
Not according to the text. The text clearly says the trees grant these things.
But only in a symbolic sense. There are many things in the bible that were symbolic of something else. For instance the Ark of the Covenant was symbolic of the relationship between Isreal and God. The Temple was symbolic of Gods presence with Isreal. The throne of the King was a symbol of God ruling Isreal.
In the same way, the two trees were symbolic of Gods rulership and of the prospect for eternal life.
Huntard writes:
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.
Bingo!
Adam and Eve knew God, they knew he was their father, they had intimate contact with him, he cared for them, he fed them, the looked after them....so they knew they could trust him becasue he had proved himself trustworthy.
They should have remained loyal to him rather then go along with the word of a stranger.
Huntard writes:
Like the "Thou shalt not kill" law? Oh yes, he holds to that one marvelously, doesn't he?
Life only exists because he creates it. He is the power source of all life on earth, so if we remove ourselves from that source, we are dead anyway. And for those who willfully act in ways that cause death and destruction to his creations, he has the right (and responsibility) to take away their lifeforce.
We dont have that right and this is why he forbids murder. But when he removes a person life, its not murder....its justice.
Huntard writes:
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.
well i guess thats why God gives us the choice. he'd prefer we choose 'life' but in the end its our decision and the fact that he allows us to choose death just shows that he respects our decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 7:51 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Huntard, posted 04-15-2010 3:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 210 of 227 (555704)
04-15-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Peg
04-14-2010 8:17 PM


Peg writes:
No, it was only after eating from the tree of knowledge that God prevented them from eating of the tree of life.
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.
If they never had eaten from the first tree, the 2nd tree would have been freely available to them.
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.
But only in a symbolic sense.
That's what you say. Nothing in the text says this.
There are many things in the bible that were symbolic of something else.
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?
For instance the Ark of the Covenant was symbolic of the relationship between Isreal and God. The Temple was symbolic of Gods presence with Isreal. The throne of the King was a symbol of God ruling Isreal.
In the same way, the two trees were symbolic of Gods rulership and of the prospect for eternal life.
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?
Bingo!
Adam and Eve knew God, they knew he was their father, they had intimate contact with him, he cared for them, he fed them, the looked after them....so they knew they could trust him becasue he had proved himself trustworthy.
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.
They should have remained loyal to him rather then go along with the word of a stranger.
But how would they know?
Life only exists because he creates it. He is the power source of all life on earth, so if we remove ourselves from that source, we are dead anyway. And for those who willfully act in ways that cause death and destruction to his creations, he has the right (and responsibility) to take away their lifeforce.
So, more might makes right then? Do as I say, not as I do? Great examples he sets then.
We dont have that right and this is why he forbids murder. But when he removes a person life, its not murder....its justice.
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.
well i guess thats why God gives us the choice. he'd prefer we choose 'life' but in the end its our decision and the fact that he allows us to choose death just shows that he respects our decision.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 8:17 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Peg, posted 04-15-2010 4:22 AM Huntard has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 211 of 227 (555707)
04-15-2010 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Huntard
04-15-2010 3:54 AM


Huntard writes:
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?
this is exactly why the trees had to be symbolic and not literal. If the tree of life could impart to them something that God did not want them the have, why would he even put it there. It would serve no purpose to put a tree there that could give them something that was not part of Gods plan for them.
Huntard writes:
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.
Because immortality is not just liviing forever.
Its much more then that. The angels are mortal beings, yet they live forever. They are not immortal though.
God is immortal because he does not require anyone to give him life...he has life within himself. All mortal creatures rely on God for life.
Immortality is deathlessness according to the greek word. God is deathless but all of his created beings are 'mortal' meaning they can die if he allows it. On the other hand, they can also live forever if he allows it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Huntard, posted 04-15-2010 3:54 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Huntard, posted 04-15-2010 8:26 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024