A Question About Deception

Would a human father put out a plate of cookies and a sign that says "Eat Me" if he didn't want his children to eat the cookies? Would he expect us to read between the lines and assume that it also meant "except you, Phat"?Would a heavenly Father put fifty rings in a brand-new tree, then grow one ring a year and expect us to read between the lines? Would He expect us to assume that the tree was not as old as He made it appear?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Good point. Evidently, God knows our thoughts, habits, and conclusions.It may be that He knew long ago that we would someday question the Bible, the stories, and Him in general.If this is true, we are only liable for our behaviors.(For the Grace people) Professions and intentions are also behaviors.

A human father expects his children to grow up - to figure things out, to question things. Should we expect any less from a heavenly Father?But a human father would not intentionally put traps in his children's way, to fool them into finding the wrong answers. Should we expect any less from a heavenly Father?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Perhaps the question is: Are we as a society actually growing up, or are we a bunch of Lord Of The Flies kids who need some authority in our lives??

As Adam and Eve "fell", symbolically we all "fall" when we obtain the knowledge of good and evil. That happens about the same time in our lives when we discover that child-bearing (and rearing) is difficult and that we have to work for what we want. That is also about the same time that we begin to question authority.Questioning Authority is harder on the Authority than it is on the questioner. The Parent has "been there" and knows what the pitfalls are. But He didn't put them there - they were already there when He was there.He may sound like He doesn't want us to question Him, but He is glad when we figure out the answers.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Exactly what it says, but percy doesn't want me to expound here on how the past may not be static. Theoritically nothing, at least from a science perspective. From a theologically perspective, God prevents and also makes things happen or allows them to happen if He has granted the power for another being to choose.

You make a good scientific argument for a young earth and that could be true. Imo though, the scriptures alone do not only support a young earth reading.I know the Bible says evening and morning, but at the same time, there wasn't even a sun and earth for there to be an evening and morning as we understand it. Long before modern science, there were very noted Jewish scholars, though not all, that also felt the 24 hour interpretation was not correct in this area.Additionally, note this passage: Here the whole 7 days or at least a few of them is referred to as one day ("in the day"). Truthfully, I think there is something to the different uses of "created" and "made" and perhaps there is something to the interpretation of God creating as a design and then forming as material creation later, but that's a different thread and I am not so sure yet what the right interpretation is.Also, remember how Jesus referred to things like walking in the day and eating his flesh, which on the surface and to his hearers meant something else entirely that Christ meant. God, at times, talks a deeper language and I think it's easy to get confused. Just because He says evening and morning doesn't necessarily mean what we think of as evening and morning in the natural, and the reason I think we should consider that is the clue He gives us about the sun and earth not even being created until 3rd and 4th days.

So enlighten us please and show an exegesis to back up your claims. Also note that I never claimed the Adam and Eve story was there to show us the age of the world, and do not believe the age of the world is set in stone or constant anyway, but that the past,present and future can expand in other ways than forward in linear time.

To become as gods and to become God are 2 different things, something Lucifer had to learn the hard way.

You are missing the point. You need to realize the story is there to illustrate some deeper theology and truths. It's true, but it's expressed the way it is for a reason.First off, they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit. They just did not "know" in the sense of be acquainted with the knowledge of good and evil. Think of "know" in this sense in the way a man "knows" his wife. They were not intimate with this knowledge, but they still knew they were doing wrong. So just on a factual level, you misread it.This calls for more analysis though.....the issue is not that God did not ever want them to know good and evil or that God doesn't plan to give us many things. The issue was one of trust. God was seeing if they would trust God's integrity or not. God, of course, knew they would not and that's a whole different can of worms, but the deception of the serpent is to suggest that God doesn't have their best interest at heart and so they should act in themselves without trusting in God.So they had a choice. Trust that God will enlighten them in due course, or enlighten themselves in disobedience to God.

This doesn't change anything in my view, how were they supposed to make the "right" choice without understanding what "right" is? This makes no sense to me whatsoever, what's carnal knowledge got to do with moral knowledge?

They knew what right is. They were not intimate with the knowledge of good and evil. Think of like this. A virgin knows what sex is, but doesn't know his or her spouse until they know one another sexually.The knowledge of good and evil deals with an intimacy and greater depth of understanding, not just knowing if something is right or wrong. They knew it was wrong to disobey God, but had never felt anything but innocence.

Of course, one point about the fall is that Adam and Eve would be 'sinless' before. They obviusly could do wrong. The only difference
before and after is that after , they KNEW what they were doing was wrong.

Not necessarily. You're thinking of a virgin who lives in our world, where the knowledge of sex is pervasive. Virginity is little more than a technicality to somebody who "intimately" knows all the details, even if they have never experienced the act. The "innocence" is mostly gone.Adam and Eve had no knowledge whatsoever of good and evil before they ate the fruit. They had never experienced evil so they didn't know what good was. They had no knowledge of good or evil, so eating the fruit was not "wrong".They knew the term "knowledge of good and evil", which is equivalent to knowing that there's a difference between boys and girls. It is not equivalent to knowing about sex.(Of course, the "event" never happened. It's a metaphor for all of us learning the difference between good and evil.)-------------Remind me, what does this have to do with the deception of an old-looking young universe?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The analogy may need some work, but there is absolutely nothing in the text indicating Adam and Eve thought it was acceptable and right to eat the fruit and quite a lot to indicate they knew it was wrong.Sorry, but your theory doesn't work here.