Adam & Eve to be blamed, or god!

Arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

looking at the english text, it seems to me that curse is applied to "the man" and "the woman" and "the serpent" in specific.

---

Indeed, which is indication that the serpent was an animal, not Satan, especially when you look at the curse given and how it applies not only to Adam, Eve, and the serpent but to all the generations yet to come:Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.Genesis is clearly treating the serpent as an animal, not a supernatural being.

quote:

---

an since immortality doesn't seem to have been bestowed on adam and eve, it wouldn't have lasted very long.

---

No, all they had to do was eat from the tree of life. In fact, that's why god panics and kicks them out of Eden: The only thing separating humans from god is immortality.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:3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.3:24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.And note that because god puts an angel to guard the entrance, it means that this is a physical place somewhere on earth and if we were to be able to get past the angel, we could re-enter Eden, find the tree of life, eat from it, and live forever.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

the correlation between him and a serpent doesn't appear until, i think, revelation.

---

Except that even the Revelation quote isn't a correlation between Satan and the serpent from Eden. You are simply saying that because Revelation calls Satan "that old serpent," that means that it's Eden's serpent.But there's a problem: Satan in Revelation is a dragon. So obviously calling him a "serpent" makes sense. It is not a reference to Genesis.

quote:

---

the standard view of the serpent being satan comes from the aspect of tempting man.

---

Yes, but like so much of what it is we think we understand about the Bible, it's wrong. The serpent wasn't Satan. How could it be since it's a Jewish story and at the time it was written, there was no concept of the devil in Judaism?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

portmaster1000 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It was simply a smart animal.

---

​

Perhaps the most intelligent animal in the garden?

---

According to Genesis, yes:Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?But just because the serpent is smart does not make him evil or wicked.

quote:

---

How has the serpent obtained it's information about the Tree of Knowledge?

---

Dunno. The Bible doesn't say.

quote:

---

What's movivating it to bring God's wrath down upon itself by tempting the "dumb" humans?

---

What makes you think the serpent "tempted" anybody? Why would the serpent fear god for simply telling the truth?It's not like the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. He simply pointed out that the consequence of eating from the tree of knowledge was knowledge, not death.

quote:

---

For such a smart animal, the coercion seems rather short sided and extremely "out of the blue".

---

You're assuming the serpent coerced somebody. Show me where the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. Chapter and verse, please.Perhaps the serpent had eaten from the tree of knowledge, understood good and evil, and knew that a good being would never punish an innocent for making a mistake that he couldn't possibly avoid. Again, the serpent doesn't tell Eve to eat from the tree, but he is confident that telling the truth about the tree will not cause any problems for a good being would never do what god actually does upon finding out.

quote:

---

I agree with you that in now way does Genesis say the serpent = Satan. Could the concept of Satan have grew out of the role of the serpent?

---

Perhaps. Remember that at the time Genesis was written, there was no concept of the devil. Therefore, the confusion of the serpent with the devil is a later imposition upon the text and is not to be found anywhere within it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Actually what the king james translates "surely die" in the original is "dying die". In other words, "dying you will die". This implies an immediate spiritual death and an eventual physical death. There was only one commandment: do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sounds pretty simple to me. They had a choice: obey or disobey. They knew the consequences of disobedience because God explained them. What are you smokin? Since when is being naked a sin anyway? The fact that they were made perfect does not inhibit their volition. It is completely illogical to assume that because they had never sinned, that the choice to obey or disobey God was not a meaningful one. You're nuts...

Of course not. The serpent was wicked because it purposefully attempted to decieve Adam and Eve. The serpent told a lie. He told them they would be "like God" and that they would NOT die. Who the heck are you? The way you twist and distort the Bible, YOU are essentially doing the same thing the serpent did. In fact the way you speak its like you're on a mission to distort the Bible. You don't know that.

i think you misinterpretted my meaning a little. actually, i do believe "that old serpent" is refering to ANOTHER serpent that is breifly mentioned in genesis. it's a bit of a spotty connection, but there's an old "my god beat up your god" mythology going on.

quote:

---

Psa 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

---

this refers back to the great dragons in the seas which genesis mentions very briefly in the first chapter, tanniyn. most bibles translate this as "whales" even though it literally means venomous serpent. it's the same word used for what moses' stick turns into, and is seen in correlation with other venomous snakes throughout the old testament.so i think what john is doing in revelation is combining and confusing the imagery of the great sea serpents, leviathan (who was a seven-headed sea serpent) from job and that psalm, and satan. i doubt he's speaking literally, especially since he's combined every form of evil he could possibly think of into a huge devil-antichrist heirarchy. i imagine he's probably writing an allegory (or maybe a coded message) about something during his own lifetime, probably involving rome.but i used "a serpent" instead of "the serpent from genesis 3" because i was aware of this fact. the terms "serpent" and "dragon" are more or less interchangeable; it's only the size the matters. and although the serpent in genesis 3 appears to have had arms and legs (hey, don't ask me), it's also a different word than the one typically used for dragon. i wasn't trying to say i agreed with the logic. i don't. it is clearly wrong. there STILL is no concept of "The Devil" in judaism to this day, actually. however, satan does make appearances in the old testament. his role is that of temptor, and tester of men, ultimately serving the will of the lord.to suggest "The Devil" as an opposite or opponent to god, as john does in revelation, is actually outright blasphemy to jews. you cannot challenge the omnipotence of god.the actual correlation of the serpent in gen 3, satan, and "The Devil" doesn't appear in widely-read literature until the 1600's, with milton's "paradise lost." i think it may have appeared earlier in the apocryphal "book of adam and eve" however. i'll have to check.but either way, it ain't in the bible.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 08-01-2004 02:06 AM

it's tough questions for the christians time. did god lie?let's look a little closer:

quote:

---

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

---

eve assumed god meant that if they ate of the tree, it would be poisonous, and they'd die. immediately. the serpent corrects that:

quote:

---

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 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.

---

so they're not gonna die immediately. this is evidenced by the text. they eat the fruit, and... don't die.maybe god meant that it will cause them to die eventually. well, this implies that before the eat the fruit, they're immortal.

quote:

---

Gen 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:

---

which obviously isn't the case. we can rule out the eventual physical death part because that was going to happen anyways.and besides, god said:

quote:

---

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

so... did god lie?personally, i think it's silly to assume that god didn't know they'd eat from that tree. if he really didn't want them to, he would have put it somewhere else. genesis promotes nudism. i'm gonna bring this up the next time we have a literalist debate: that if we're to really take genesis seriously, we need to abolish clothing.

show me the verse were the serpent lies. i bet you can't. he said they wouldn't die, and they didn't. uh, not to point out what a silly point that is, but even god says "behold the man is become as one of us." god said that man was like god. so far, by the word of god, the serpent's "lie" checks out as truth. ...and they didn't die. god said they'd die the day ate from the tree. the serpent said they wouldn't. the serpent was right.where's the lie? historical researchers do. but, here. we'll do a test. where's the first place the word devil, even lowercase, appears in the text? matthew. not genesis. more than a thousand years later. satan appears a few times... but never as "the devil," just an angel, a son of god who tests the validity of men's faith.

well, yes, but i don't think it neccessarily translates to ALL of man, ALL women, and ALL serpents. although most serpents do go about on their stomachs, i know of none that eat dust. and the woman's seed could be read in specific. the apocryphal "book of adam and eve" treats it this way. seth and the serpent run into each other, and the serpent bites his heel, and seth bashes his head.but yes, clearly an animal, not a supernatural being. well, the point was that man was not originally created immortal, and the sin caused the eventual death. man, in his original state, was subject to death. yes, all he had to do was eat from the tree of life. but he hadn't. no neccessarily. it think it's still possible to read it as if eden were in the heavens somewhere, and earth was the barren wasteland given to man as punishment. but it's probably mroe likely it was meant to be a physical place on earth, yes. probably deliberately referencing the fertile cresent, actually. the story might be an explanation of why the hebrews ended up in the desert.

Hangdawg13 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God is not talking about metaphorical, king's age days. He's using crystal clear terminology as would be understood by anybody speaking Hebrew: Before the sun set, you'd be dead. A physical death, not a spiritual death.

---

​

Actually what the king james translates "surely die" in the original is "dying die". In other words, "dying you will die". This implies an immediate spiritual death and an eventual physical death.

---

Your forgetting the other part: In the day. That has a very specific meaning: That very day. Not tomorrow, not hundreds of years hence, not the beginning of something that will take eons to achieve...that very day before the sun sets.The implication is quite clear: Physical death before the sun sets.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That simply compounds the problem: With Adam and Eve being innocent, why would they follow the commandment to obey commandments?

---

​

There was only one commandment: do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sounds pretty simple to me.

---

That's because you understand what a commandment is. It isn't nearly simple to someone who doesn't understand what a commandment is. Adam was not told, "Don't do this because I don't want you to." He was told, "Don't do this because you will die." The former requires understanding of good and evil, which Adam did not have since he hadn't eaten from the tree yet.Therefore, why would Adam follow a commandment when he doesn't know what a commandment is?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How can Adam and Eve understand what that means when they do not understand good and evil, right and wrong?

---

​

They had a choice: obey or disobey.

---

But how is that in any way meaningful to someone that doesn't understand consequences? Obviously Adam and Eve could have not eaten from the tree. They obviously had existed for some time without having eaten from it. But that isn't a choice. A choice can only mean something when one understands the consequences of that choice.Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One will grant you everlasting bliss while the other will send you to eternal agony. Which one is it? Come on, now, choose! You're an adult. You're not stupid. Which one is it? Make your choice!

quote:

---

They knew the consequences of disobedience because God explained them.

---

No, they did not! Where on earth did god explain the consequences? He lied to them! He told them in no uncertain terms that if they were to eat of the tree of life, they would be physically dead before the sun set. The serpent pointed out that that wasn't true. Instead, they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.And when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they didn't die. They became as gods, knowing good and evil.How can you understand consequences when you don't understand good and evil? God did not tell them, "Do not eat of the tree for I do not wish you to and to disobey me is a sin which is evil." And even if he did, what on earth does that mean to someone who doesn't understand what "evil" is?Please explain "red" to a blind person.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We already know that they're sinning their butts off since they're running around naked and are not ashamed.

---

​

What are you smokin?

---

Nothing.You have read the Bible, have you not?Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.The very first thing that Adam and Eve panic over after they eat from the tree of knowledge and become as gods is not the fact that they just disobeyed the only commandment they had ever been given. It's the fact that they're 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.And when god comes looking for them (and why does god need to look for them?) and asks them why they are hiding, it isn't because they are ashamed for having disobeyed but rather because they are naked:Genesis 3:10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.Therefore, Genesis points out that running around without clothes is a sin and yet, Adam and Eve get a pass from this sin (graver than disobeying god, it would seem) because they are innocent and don't know any better.So why all the fuss over the other sin? They don't know any better. They're not stupid. They're simply innocent. They don't understand right and wrong. What on earth is god doing putting the tree of knowledge in Eden where Adam and Eve can get at it if he doesn't want them eating from it?If you have a delicate Mhing vase you do not wish destroyed, you do not put it on a rickety pedestal with a toddler in the room and then walk away. It doesn't matter how much you tell the child, "Don't touch." He doesn't understand. He's innocent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Given the fact that at least Adam had seen god directly and god certainly wouldn't sin by being naked,

---

​

Since when is being naked a sin anyway?

---

Since the Bible said so. You have read the Bible, haven't you?Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.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.Genesis 3:10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.God even goes so far as to make clothes for them:Genesis 3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.If god doesn't care about nakedness, why does he bother to make clothes for them?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So even if Adam was told directly to obey god, what good would it do? He's innocent and doesn't understand what "obedience" means.

---

​

The fact that they were made perfect does not inhibit their volition.

---

If they were perfect, they would be incapable of sin. Therefore, eating from the tree of knowledge was not a sin.I never said they didn't have free will. I said they were innocent. An innocent person can choose between going left and going right, but he doesn't understand the consequences of that choice precisely because he is innocent. Thus, he cannot be held responsible for that choice.Disobedience requires a comprehension of good and evil. It requires a deliberate act of defiance which the innocent are incapable of by definition: They are innocent.

quote:

---

It is completely illogical to assume that because they had never sinned, that the choice to obey or disobey God was not a meaningful one.

---

Indeed, that would be illogical. And thank heaven that I never said nor implied any such thing.I did not say Adam and Eve were not guilty because they had never sinned before. I said they were not guilty because they were incapable of committing sin. Committing sin requires comprehension of good and evil which by definition Adam and Eve did not have because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.Being naked is a sin as shown by the direct statement of the Bible in Genesis 2 and by the actions of Adam, Eve, and god in Genesis 3. And yet, nobody seems to mind so long as Adam and Eve remain innocent. They don't know what they're doing and thus, they aren't committing sin.Thus, eating from the tree of knowledge also is not a sin. They don't know what they are doing and thus, they aren't committing sin.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't he have already clothed himself to emultate god?

---

​

You're nuts...

---

Snappy comeback. Now, try responding to the point.Given the fact that at least Adam had seen god directly and god certainly wouldn't sin by being naked, Adam has at least experienced the distinction between being clothed and not being clothed and he doesn't understand the importance of this distinction until after he eats from the tree.So even if Adam was told directly to obey god, what good would it do? He's innocent and doesn't understand what "obedience" means. Wouldn't he have already clothed himself to emultate god?Why do Adam and Eve panic over the fact that they are naked? Why are they ashamed of being naked? They have always been naked before. What's changed?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But just because the serpent is smart does not make him evil or wicked.

---

​

Of course not. The serpent was wicked because it purposefully attempted to decieve Adam and Eve.

---

Where do you get that? I would like you to show me the chapter and verse in Genesis where it says that the serpent purposefully attempted to deceive Adam and Eve. It is no good taking Eve's word for it. She's making excuses for her disobedience.Where did the serpent tell Eve to eat from the tree?Chapter and verse, please.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What makes you think the serpent "tempted" anybody? Why would the serpent fear god for simply telling the truth?

---

​

The serpent told a lie. He told them they would be "like God" and that they would NOT die.

---

And that's exactly what happened. They didn't die and they became as gods. Haven't you read the Bible?Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.So since god directly states that Adam would die a physical death before sunset if he were to eat of the tree and since Adam did not die a physical death before sunset when he ate from the tree, where do you get off saying the serpent lied?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.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 since god directly states that Adam and Eve became as gods and since the serpent said that Adam and Eve would become as gods from eating of the tree, where do you get off saying the serpent lied?

quote:

---

quote:

---

understood good and evil, and knew that a good being would never punish an innocent for making a mistake that he couldn't possibly avoid. ...he is confident that telling the truth about the tree will not cause any problems for a good being would never do what god actually does upon finding out.

---

​

Who the heck are you?

---

Someone who is capable of reading. You asked why the serpent would say what he did. I directly told you that I don't really know since the Bible does not say. I speculated. It's as good a reason as any other since the Bible doesn't say why the serpent did what he did. He didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. He did tell her the truth of what would happen if she did.

quote:

---

The way you twist and distort the Bible, YOU are essentially doing the same thing the serpent did.

---

What distortion? Where have I said anything that isn't directly stated in the Bible?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Remember that at the time Genesis was written, there was no concept of the devil.

---

​

You don't know that.

---

Yes, I do. When was the last time you did any research on the history of Judaism and how Zoroastrianism played a part in its history? Compare the story of David and the census as noted in 2 Samuel 24 as compared to 1 Chronicles 21:2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.1 Chronicles 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.Um, why the switch? Who was it that spurred David to do the census? Was it god or was it Satan? 2 Samuel was written about 560 BCE while 1 Chronicles was written about 400 BCE. It's during that time period that the idea of an agent that is independent of god and works against god comes into Judaism. Before that, all things good and evil come from god for god is the creator of everything. The Bible directly states so:Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.Isaiah 40-55 was written sometime around the middle of the sixth century BCE. This meshes with 2 Samuel's vision of god being the one that spurs David since they were written about the same time.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

---

​

well, yes, but i don't think it neccessarily translates to ALL of man, ALL women, and ALL serpents.

---

Well, seeing as how there's only Adam and Eve and the curse is that all of Eve's children will have enmity with the serpent's offspring, the only logical conclusion is that it applies to all of humanity since we are all necessarily children of Eve.The only thing you've got going is that there might be more than two serpents around, but the Bible doesn't say that there are. It hints that this serpent is reasonably unique:Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"The" serpent?And since serpents these days don't have legs (other than a few throwbacks), the only conclusion is that all current serpents are descendents of the one that was cursed.

quote:

---

although most serpents do go about on their stomachs, i know of none that eat dust.

---

And rabbits don't chew the cud, bats are not birds, and there is no insect with four legs. The fact that the Bible gets it wrong when it comes to zoology isn't surprising.

quote:

---

well, the point was that man was not originally created immortal, and the sin caused the eventual death. man, in his original state, was subject to death. yes, all he had to do was eat from the tree of life. but he hadn't.

---

Agreed.If one were to read Genesis 2 with a more critical eye, one might come to the conclusion that it's really a test to see who is gullible. I have often posited that the Bible was actually written by the devil with the parts reversed. After all, what better coup than to get you to think that the devil is god and god is the devil? How else to explain a being that sets somebody up for failure and then punishes them for that failure? Is that not the act of an evil being?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And note that because god puts an angel to guard the entrance, it means that this is a physical place somewhere on earth and if we were to be able to get past the angel, we could re-enter Eden, find the tree of life, eat from it, and live forever.

---

​

no neccessarily. it think it's still possible to read it as if eden were in the heavens somewhere, and earth was the barren wasteland given to man as punishment.

---

No, because you can build a tower tall enough to reach heaven (Genesis 11). Since we know that the atmosphere eventually goes away and we know that Eden was lush and verdant, Eden must be on the earth somewhere. It certainly cannot be anywhere beyond earth's atmosphere.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's simply false. It is by this misconception that the serpent decieved eve. He told her a half truth. She would not immediately die physically, but would immediately die spiritually. God told him not to do something. He chose to do it. I don't see what's so hard to understand. One does not need knowledge of good and evil in order to obey God. And Adam and Eve recieved two conflicting versions of the consequences. One from God and one from the serpent. Eve decided to believe the serpent and choose against God's will. Adam did not believe the serpent, but chose against God's will anyway. I will not make a choice until God tells me which one to choose. If God tells me to choose Beetaratagang, then I will choose it. If you subsequently tell me to choose clerendipity, thereby contradicting God's instructions, I will not listen to you because I choose to do what God tells me. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, dying, you will die. And when they disobeyed God they died spiritually and became mortal causing eventual physical death. Umm... you mean the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But where does it say "physically dead"? How do we even know what physical death is at this point? There is nothing to indicate anything has ever died. God simply said, "muth muth": dying die implying two deaths; one immediate, one future. By tacking on the "physical" to the death you are accomplishing the same deception as the serpent. If they didn't die spiritually, then why were they forbidden to live in the garden in God's presence? Why could they no longer partake of the fruit of the tree of life? Why did they have to begin making sacrifices to cover their sins? Do you even know what spiritual life is? It does not point this out. It points out that their first act after sinning was one of self-righteousness.Tell me where God commands them to wear clothes. God doesn't care whether they are naked or not. They only care after they have sinned because they realize their depravity and want to hide it from God and from each other. If you were a teenager and your parents walked in on you while you were having sex, what would be your first instinct? To cover up.I read a little about nudist colonies once and it was very interesting. They are very conservative people usually and there is no leaning towards the hanky panky that many people suspect them of. They are more innocent than most people and when people are not guilty of doing anything wrong, they feel no need to cover themseleves up. Modesty in clothing is a product of sin and lust. Not to say that modesty in clothing itself is a sin, but it is only necessary because of sin.There is a passage, I forget where, that indicates they had a clothing of many precious stones as a metaphor for light. So perhaps before the fall they were clothed with light. It makes sense, but it is a little speculative. Three purposes: For their comfort; apparently they suddenly became modest: a self-righteous quality after the fall. For their protection from the elements as they were no longer in the perfect envrionment of Eden. And possibly as a way of beginning the custom of wearing clothes as a means of keeping sexual lust under wraps.No where in the Bible does God command us to wear clothes. When the ark of the covanent comes to town, David, a man after God's own heart, runs out in the street and starts dancing around naked. It is his wife, who we later find out is absolutely no good, who reacts self-righteously and says, "how shameful of you to reveal yourself in public". This is the stupidest fallacy I've ever heard, and I have heard it before.Being perfect is a quality that only exists in reference to God. If being perfect inhibited their ability to stop being perfect, then they wouldn't have a choice. Where does someone get the idea that being perfect removes your ability to choose to quit being perfect. Adam and Eve were not immutable like God. They could change and they did change. You have not established that nakedness is a sin. I think I've already explained this well enough. Their eyes were opened to understanding good and evil. They knew that because they had disobeyed God, they were now spiritually dead and sinful. Their first reaction was to cover themselves to prevent their wickedness from being seen.Honestly, I don't know why you try so hard to distort this. A five-year-old can be read this story and comprehend it. Why are you trying to muddy the waters? What's your beef with God?

If they have no concept of good or evil - how did they know that God was telling the truth and that the devil was lying?God could have been a friendly gaoler for all they knew.Actually now I think about it - why is the tree there to start with? It's like God wants them to fail - like an abusive parent.LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.Who is the "us"? Is he talking to Zeus or one of the other gods?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-01-2004 12:45 PM

The word subtle or crafty is usually meant in a bad or evil sense. In this case, since the serpent was contradicting God, it is definately and evil sense.The serpent asks the question, "Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?" He starts his con game by asking a seemingly innocent question already implying God's untrustworthiness knowing that this will lead Eve to tell him about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent then tells Eve she will not die, which is a lie. He also says that she will be like god in the knowledge of good and evil. He appeals to the same desire that led himself astray: the desire to be like the most high. They did die two deaths. They died spiritually immediately and physically in the future. The serpent said, you will not surely die and he was wrong. The serpent's statement that they would be like God was misleading. What knowledge they gained in the knowledge of good and evil was dwarfed by their loss of righteousness causing complete inferiority to and total separation from God, thus "spiritual death". You said being naked is a sin. You said the serpent did not decieve. You said it is impossible for a perfect being to become imperfect. You said Adam and Eve were sinning before the fall. You said God lied. You imply that the serpent is really the good guy proclaiming the gospel of truth and knowledge. Etc... and so forth..Honestly I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with such a distorted view. Anyone can read the Bible and understand this story. The fact that you try your damnedest to distort the story so as to make the Serpent/satan the good guy and God the bad guy is very telling.