Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,922 Year: 4,179/9,624 Month: 1,050/974 Week: 9/368 Day: 9/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 127 of 227 (554594)
04-09-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Huntard
04-09-2010 7:24 AM


Huntard writes:
So, no other comments then? You agree with the explanation?
not at all
Although, for an account that can explain a lot about the world we live in today, your explanation contributes nothing to it.
On the other hand, the bibles account of mankinds fall explains why we die, who the enemy of mankind is and how he operates, why human existence is so troublesom and why dependence on God is so beneficial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2010 7:24 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2010 8:00 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 130 of 227 (554738)
04-09-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2010 10:12 AM


catholic scientist writes:
What passages do you get that from?
Deut 30:19, 20 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you as well as your descendants may live, by loving the LORD your God, by heeding his injunctions, and by holding fast to him; for that will mean life to you.
Revelation 22:17 "And the spirit and the bride keep on saying: Come! And let anyone hearing say: Come! And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free"
Catholic Scientist writes:
Doesn't this mean that god had to "set them up" because he was incapable of giving them free will without establishing a law for them to disobey?
in some way yes, but not in the sense that he 'set them up to fail', NO.
He never wanted them to fail, and if he did, why is he offering salvation to mankind? If failure was his purpose, what is he saving mankind from?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2010 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 135 of 227 (554953)
04-10-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rrhain
04-10-2010 9:21 PM


Ok, in the same way God informed Adam and Eve of the bad consequences if they chose to eat, you tell me the consequences and then i can make the choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 04-10-2010 9:21 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Meddle, posted 04-11-2010 7:31 PM Peg has replied
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 1:23 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 153 of 227 (555065)
04-12-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Meddle
04-11-2010 7:31 PM


Malcolm writes:
But then did Adam and Eve understand the consequences? God warned them that they would die, but then as many Christians argue, death didn't exist until after the fall, so they'd have no concept of death.
that is a strange misconception
Yes there was no human death until after the fall, but Eden was populated with an animal population who did die. Death of animals always was. It was only mankind who were given the propsect of eternal life because they were made in Gods image.
Animals were not and therefore should not be considered to have lived forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Meddle, posted 04-11-2010 7:31 PM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 3:49 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 154 of 227 (555066)
04-12-2010 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rrhain
04-11-2010 10:41 PM


Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. The Gensis 1:20 says nothing of the kind. Oh, you're equivocating on the word "nephesh," aren't you?
But let's go with your claim. This would mean that animals have morality. But you just said that if animals have morality, then the source of morality is not god.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways: Either animals are moral agents and acquire their morality without god, thus showing that morality is not connected to god, or they aren't moral agents and thus they have no souls.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467 writes:
Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2)
Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines Nephesh as writes:
the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17,11 Dt 12,23: (249 X) ... soul = living being, individual, person.
Are animals living beings? Yes they are therefore they are souls just as mankind are souls....living, breathing beings.
The greek idea of soul has nothing to do with the jewish Nephesh/Soul of the bible.
Rrhain writes:
Now, please answer my question:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
when you tell me the consequences, in the same way God told Adam and Eve the consequences, then i can choose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2010 10:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 3:53 AM Peg has replied
 Message 160 by Apothecus, posted 04-12-2010 1:50 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 157 of 227 (555081)
04-12-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rrhain
04-12-2010 3:53 AM


*cough*
Genesis 2:16And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.
*cough*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 3:53 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 8:23 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 159 by bluescat48, posted 04-12-2010 9:13 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 3:16 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 166 of 227 (555295)
04-13-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Apothecus
04-12-2010 1:50 PM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Apothecus writes:
Over the course of 150-odd posts you've been asked, nay, hounded to answer "the question". I get the impression that Rrhain (and others) have asked this in the past (of you, I'm sure, and others as well). It must smart a little for you (and Slevesque) to need to tap dance around the issue instead of just admitting you cannot answer "the question".
That is, you can't answer without compromising many (if not all) base tenets of your literalist dogma.
Not quite.
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'
That is the difference with Rrhains question to me. He is not telling me what the consequences of either option will be. 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. If he cannot do that, then his question is nothing more then a philosophical mind game.
Adam and Eve were not left in the dark with regard to the consequences of eating from the tree. No one seems to accept that yet even though it is clearly stated in the passage.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Apothecus, posted 04-12-2010 1:50 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 4:39 AM Peg has replied
 Message 180 by Apothecus, posted 04-13-2010 3:26 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 5:31 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 168 of 227 (555318)
04-13-2010 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Huntard
04-13-2010 4:39 AM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Huntard writes:
But that didn't happen, did it? They didn't die that day, the serpent told the truth.
What is 1 day? Its certainly not 24hours according to scripture.
What is 1 day from Gods standpoint?
2 Peter 3:8 says "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
One day for God is 1,000 years for man, just as one year for a man is 7 years for a dog.
We are not all bound by the same concept of time. From Gods standpoint, Adam and Eve did die the day they ate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 4:39 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Parasomnium, posted 04-13-2010 5:04 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 170 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 5:09 AM Peg has replied
 Message 171 by anglagard, posted 04-13-2010 5:12 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 172 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 5:28 AM Peg has replied
 Message 181 by bluescat48, posted 04-14-2010 12:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 173 of 227 (555329)
04-13-2010 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Huntard
04-13-2010 5:09 AM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Dog years are not the same as human years, if you've never heard of 'dog years' then read up.
You know the discussions that have been had about the hebrew word 'yom'
I'm sure i dont need to remind you of the jewish definition of this word. But to jog your memory, it can mean a persons lifetime, it can mean a whole time period where an extraordinary event happens...it can mean the portion of the day when there is light, it can also mean a season... It isnt just 24hours and anyone who demands that the genesis yom is a literal 24 hours is not taking the meaning of the word into consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 5:09 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 7:02 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 177 by hotjer, posted 04-13-2010 7:12 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 178 by purpledawn, posted 04-13-2010 7:22 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 179 by Coragyps, posted 04-13-2010 10:46 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 174 of 227 (555330)
04-13-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Huntard
04-13-2010 5:28 AM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Huntard writes:
Also, one more thing. Adam and Eve were always meant to die, see Genesis 3:22. They did die before the thousand years were up, in short, god's threat amounts to: "If you eat from that tree, you will die on the moment you were going to die anyway"
ok so now you want to add the words 'on the moment' to the account.
Unfortunately, they dont exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 5:28 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 7:05 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 182 of 227 (555508)
04-14-2010 2:24 AM


i just cant be bothered anymore
keep your arguments, you are all correct and i am completely off the planet.
a hebrew yom means 24 hours specifically and a dog year is exactly the same as a human year
Adam and eve had no idea what the consequences of eating from the tree would be and the serpant is not satan as John says, it was simply a talking snake who spoke the truth and Adam and eve did not die.
Great. Glad that you've all set me straight... i feel so enlightened.

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 3:48 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 200 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 5:52 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 184 of 227 (555519)
04-14-2010 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rrhain
04-14-2010 3:16 AM


Rrhain writes:
You're trying to game the system. You want to eat from the tree first before you make your choice, but Adam and Eve didn't have that luxury. The very choice they were being asked to make was whether to eat from the tree.
No, they were clearly told that eating from the tree would bring death. You are not giving me the same consideration.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 3:16 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 3:52 AM Peg has replied
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 5:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 190 of 227 (555528)
04-14-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Huntard
04-14-2010 3:52 AM


Huntard writes:
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.
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?
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?
do you simply go ahead and break the laws because some stranger told you that the legal penalty wont be enforced?
Its the same with Adam and Eve. Along comes a stranger and he tells Eve that the legal penalty wont apply...that she'll be better off. She goes ahead and breaks the law without consulting anyone.
Now back to clerendipity and beetaratagang - To make a choice not only do we need to know the consequences (as Adam and Eve did) we also need to know the person who gave us the choice in the first place. If that person had always been our protector and provider and had never left us without and his word was always truthful, then there is no reason to distrust him....unlike a strange talking snake whom noone had ever seen before and especially with the knowledge that animals don't usually talk. You would have to know that something wasnt right about that whole situation, wouldnt you?
Or should we assume that A&E were dimwits who had no idea that snakes couldnt really talk?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 3:52 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 5:12 AM Peg has replied
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 6:34 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 204 by Coragyps, posted 04-14-2010 6:45 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 191 of 227 (555529)
04-14-2010 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Parasomnium
04-14-2010 3:58 AM


parsomnium writes:
I have the feeling this is going to lead nowhere, Huntard. Peg has already made it clear she is not going to discuss this anymore.
call me a glutton for punishment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Parasomnium, posted 04-14-2010 3:58 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Parasomnium, posted 04-14-2010 5:14 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 193 of 227 (555535)
04-14-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Rrhain
04-14-2010 4:24 AM


Rrhain writes:
And I showed how those resources assume that which you're trying to prove. They all depend upon Adam and Eve already knowing what "good" and "evil" are.
philosophical dribble.
All they knew up until that point was good. They were perfect beings in perfect harmony with their creator. They didnt need to 'know' good, they WERE good.
And they did know 'evil'...they knew eating from the tree WAS evil. That is what evil was...disobeying Gods commands was evil. Thats why, after they ate, they 'knew' evil...they had brought evil upon themselves and thereby experienced it...they knew it.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 4:24 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 6:45 AM Peg 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