Poor Satan, so misunderstood.

This is a fine point, and the right response to the question of satan. This is an agent, the same as what some refer to as angels who visited Abraham. Both were performing commands, positive and negative, and it is for the benefit of human response to it. The outcome too is subjective to humans.There is no such thing as a spiritual force acting counter, which ushered in premises of anti-Gd notions and born in sin. Only humans can perform an act which is contrary to laws, because of the free choice factor - and this choice only applies to the laws; there is no choice factor where a moral/ethical decision is not applicable. This is also embedded in the judiciary system: if a law is not mandated, there can be no conviction; if the accused did not have a choice to avoid a crime - it is termed an act of God or a natural disaster.

quote:

---

No, in challenging Eve he challenged humanity. The two were one.

---

The term 'adam' in ch one refers to a human [not man or woman], as you said, they were one ['Man and woman created he them']. Adam became a name [Pronoun] in chap 2. Technically, Eve was innocent: she was given this command second-hand, and incorrectly. Adam, when separated from Eve, told her not to touch the tree and she would die by doing so; this was not true, because the command only referred to eating, not touching, of the fruit. However, Adam said this with good intention - to further protect Eve. the serpent used this innocent statement to attack Eve; the serpent too was correct here. All were punished - yet this command is not one of the 613 commandments in the OT.All were punished - yet there was a blessing hidden therein, and the ushering of a future realm for humanity: the ushering of a life form with testings, experience and elevation - freedom of choice [applicable only with the OT laws/there is no freedom of choice outside this vicinity], and the Go Forward into a realm of postives and negatives throughout humanity, applicable for individual and nations, at every turn of every action. Elevation was the acquiring of a positive via the prevailing of a negative.

quote:

---

Satan is the slanderer against God and man. You may philosophically muse whether or not Satan "should" have been or not. I think the answer is partly yes and partly no. It is paradox.

---

I see the serpent as following a command of God, and that it is not possible to be a counter to God's Will. Else the universe would not subsist.

quote:

---

Looking at the two ends of the Bible is very interesting. In Genesis you have the garden and man within told to guard it. At the end the the Bible the garden has become a city. There is the tree of life there. And there is a wall around the city with the tree of life in it.

---

Yet this garden is not in this material realm: adam and eve were placed here, then sent down to this realm, and re-entry barred for life by angels with firey swords. Here, the serpent assumed an animal in the dust; there, he was a talking, upright-standing [else why say the serpent will now crawl?] spiirtual entity.

quote:

---

Satan is in the lake of fire being punished for eternity.

---

Is that not a waste of fuel, lol. Nothing is eternal in the universe. The law of forgiveness applies even with sins. Abraham took up this notion even for the most evil city of Sodom, with words which shook heaven and earth: WILL THE JUDGE OF ALL TAKE THE INNOCENT WITH THE GULTY - THIS EVIL BE FAR AWAY FROM YOU'. Thus was Abraham blessed. Moses too took up the notion of death, as unacceptable as man's final destiny, and was told, in reverse order: 'I TAKE LIFE - AND I GIVE LIFE'.

quote:

---

Man bears much responsibility in the Fall of Man. He does not bear the responsiblity for the rebellion and fall of Lucifer. And he doesn't bear responsibility fall the rebellion of the pre-Adamic world. He does, however, bear responsibility for the fall of that world which was placed under his (man's) dominion.

---

What about:'THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' - one of the OT laws, which even God cannot contradict - this is God's law, and God abides by His laws - based on the constant God is Truth?

quote:

---

No, he didn't. The serpent in the garden was precisely that: A serpent. Nothing more, nothing less. The Bible directly calls the serpent a beast. The punishment of the serpent is to have its legs removed and to have his offspring forever crushed under the heel of humans.

---

I too agree with all the factors of your post here. That the serpent has his legs confiscated, means he onced had legs and did not crawl - which says this garden was not in this physical realm. It is further affirmed by the expulsion and barring of re-entry. ironically, a talking serpent becomes vindicated here, or not absusive of logic in the narratives.It also alludes to why we have no knowledge of anything of a pre-physical realm or of the origins of anything whatsoever. This is not a lacking of human intelligence and prowess: the gates are barred at the present time. We subsequently know there must be a purpose for creation [nothing is superfluous] - yet we know not what that purpose is. This is given as a reason to await a Messiah or further revelation.

quote:

---

There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. That would defy the purpose of the monotheism: One god, only one, everything comes from him. To have a devil would mean there are two and there is only one. To have a son would mean there are two and there is only one.

---

Absolutely, though we don't blame those following their belief sincerely. Monotheism is a scientific and logical advocation, and an extremely difficult premise to adopt in real life - specially for European and asian peoples. It has encountered resentment throughout history - from Canaan, ancient Egypt, Babylon, Hellenism, Rome and Christianity. An invisable, undefinable and unfathomable God is demanding, but once inculcated - can never be overturned. There is a love/hate thing with Monotheism - all recognise its truth, while being attached to their core beliefs and traditions as well.Monotheism is a pre-judaic law, made to Noah, and applies to all mankind. I believe that all humans are monotheistic, when push comes to shove. The numerous dieties followed in Hinuism, I believe represents agents or transit points, and they ultimately believe the buck stops with Monotheism. I also see the greatest proof of a Creator resting in athiesm - specifically atheist science: this is already inclining towards alternate premises, namely Singularity, BBT, I.D., etc. Ultimately...it points to a common denominator, exactly as per the OT. The only factor causing a rejection is the Creator syndrome, while all the surrounding stats and specs are alligned.The answer to all these issues are also vested in the OT: there can be no resolvement if an enlightened one comes - or returns - unless this is by the Creator - openly [not shrowded], simultainiously to all 6B humans [as opposed the 3M at Sinai]. However, such a revelation would end the premise of faith, and would obviously call for a new ophase in creation: faith is meritless with revealed, open knowledge.

quote:

---

This book is to the Jews yet also to all mankind.

---

This is true, and the text itself says so, and jews are nothing more than the postman with funny looking garb. The OT addresses all mankind, prior to any religious group or belief system emerged, and gives laws pertaining to various sectors and groupings of humanity [women only, parents, strangers, laws for animals, the environment, and the judiciary institutions], including some ritual laws to jews prefixed 'Unto you'.A mysterious thing here is, the OT is also called the Law Book ['This book of laws'], and the world has not accepted any laws from any other sector to date. It is amazing considering the time factor and that numerous religions emerged thereafter. This is perhaps the best proof this was not from the mind of Jews or any known group of peoples. It vindicates one of its bold and daring law, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS. Which human would risk such a demand, with the injunction of terms such as 'forever' in some of its laws - it would be subject to assured failure?

quote:

---

The old serpent was the devil - " ... The ancient serpent; he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth" (Rev. 12:9)

---

The OT does not contain any reference to devil, satan or hell: none of these words appear. It is a fundamental variance from other scriptures, despite that there are a host of rituals and miracles here. The monotheistic premise is very exacting in the OT, and is a guide to all of its narratives' understanding: it does not allow any opposition or equivalence in any form whatsoever, while declaring laws of equality and justice for all. It is also the fulcrum reason for the seperation of christianity from its mother religion.

OT = The 5 Mosaic books. Job is post Bible, prophetic writings.

quote:

---

You need to stop for a minute and contemplate the personality and power of a being who could dare to revolt against God to overthrow God. Appearing or using a serpent would be nothing to him.

---

No need to think about it. This is hellenist head bashing diety stuff. Its not monotheism, but skirting paganism. To each their own - not that one's belief transcends one's actions..

quote:

---

I sometimes wonder how the Egyptian magicians were able to imitate God's miracle and turn their staffs into serpents. This they did by their dark magic arts.

---

This is a top question, and not much understood. The ancient world did have magic, same as we have science today - the latter replaced the former. The Egyptian priests were able to forecast the coming of Moses via the sea [thus they killed the first born male hebrews].

quote:

---

Anyway, the little snake is going to the lake of fire to be punished forever. And we of the children of God are going to take a part in putting him there.

---

There is no punishment described as 'forever'; this would contradict the act of forgiveness and mercy.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the serpent has his legs confiscated, means he onced had legs and did not crawl - which says this garden was not in this physical realm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Except the Bible says it was. The garden was placed among the four rivers, two of which most people actually have heard of: The Tigris and Euphrates.

---

Consider the text:

quote:

---

Gen. 2/10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.

---

Consider the words, 'THENCE' and 'PARTED' here. The garden was parted [seperated from] the river; one was not on the physical earth realm. Then:

quote:

---

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

---

'Took man' [from where? - from the physical earth he was created in], and placed him in the [separated] garden, aka pardez, aka paradise. Next, the expulsion to earth, with re-entry barred :

quote:

---

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. 23 Therefore the LORD God *sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken*. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. {S}

---

quote:

---

If it were not in the physical realm, what on earth were Adam, Eve, all the other animals, and all the plants doing there since all of them were physical beings?

---

Examine the text impacting on your pivotal question. We saw that adam was taken from the place he was created, and put into a garden, which was parted from where Adam came from. We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam [The OT is contextual, not chronological]. We know that after adam's encounter with the animals, this verse appears:

quote:

---

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.

---

The encounter of adam and eve as seperate entities occured in the paradisical garden, signified by 'deep' sleep [instead of normal sleep only]; this 'deep sleep' term is again mentioned with Abraham, whereby he is suddenly swirling the universe galaxies [enumerable stars] and given a prophesy his seed will surely be in bondage - even before any seed was yet born or commited any sin/crime. In both cases, Adam and Abraham were transported, so to speak [astralised?], into a different realm.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also alludes to why we have no knowledge of anything of a pre-physical realm or of the origins of anything whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Except the Bible specifically says that everything started on the first day, five days before the creation of humans.

---

Yes, but w/o any contradictions with the conclusion. Everything was created in one instant [opening verse 1/1]; their chronological emergence in the six cosmic days [not earth-calendar 24 hour days]. This was the generic creation of life forms per se, and then explained in more subjective, historical context in the subsequent chapter. The text imposes this critical reading, else it does not make any orderly connections.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is given as a reason to await a Messiah or further revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

There's that Christian imposition upon a Jewish text again.

​

The Messiah is not a philosopher. The Messiah is a warlord. Prophecy specifically says so.

​

Oh, and the Messiah does not die.

​

Ergo, Jesus cannot be the Messiah which is one of the myriad reasons why Jews don't accept him.

---

Yes, nor does the messiah need resurrecting - the people need this, as well as a reconcialation with the animal kingdom, and peace between the nations of the earth [Isaiah]. The term warrior is multi-levelled.

quote:

---

Was Adam a Jew ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Adam was created by the Jewish god, wasn't he?

---

Abraham was the first Jew, and Jacob [Israel] became a nation after the cencus under Moses. All the OT laws upto Noah are directed upon all humanity, prior to any religions being formed. There are seven Noahic laws, which includes the belief of Monotheism - encumbent upon all humanity.

quote:

---

The fact that you have strayed and have started worshipping other gods doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis is a Jewish story.

---

But the OT is also a universal and global treatise, effecting all sectors of life, including animals, women, parents and interactions between religious groups and nations. The jewish position may be just a background setting, as per its texts: be an example/light unto the nations, and the application of its laws which declares equal rights and justice applicable to all humanity equally.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened to God's promise that through Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Nothing. All you have to do is follow the god of the Jews. It's the first commandment, after all: I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

---

That statute is well vindicated. Abraham's seed refers to jews, christians and muslims, and by subsequence all the world which follows the laws and advocations. A time factor is not given here.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did God say only the Jews would be blessed through Abraham?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Of course not. But if you decide to worship other gods, what do you expect?

---

The blessings were to all of Abraham's 'seed'; Jews constitute one thread, and the smallest, the variance being jews must follow 'all' the OT laws w/o variance. The law not to add or subtract is not mandated in other scriptures.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the words, 'THENCE' and 'PARTED' here. The garden was parted [seperated from] the river; one was not on the physical earth realm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. You ignored your own text. The river parted into four. Those four rivers are here on earth. Therefore, the thing happens here on earth.

---

The river was parted [seperated] from Eden; it went 'out of Eden' [seperated from Eden], and became 4 heads 'after' this parting:Gen. 2/10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Took man' [from where? - from the physical earth he was created in], and placed him in the [separated] garden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

But the earth he was created in WAS THE GARDEN. Therefore, the garden was on earth.

​

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

​

The garden is "east." Not in another dimension. Not in a spiritual realm. It's simply "east." It's here on earth.

---

East, and Easterly Wind, refers to something else in the OT, as with a strong easterly wind which split the sea of reeds: it denotes an unnatural act or event. That the garden of Eden is not on earth is signified by the putting of man there from where he was formed - namely from earth. It becomes grammatically unsustainable to say this means taking one from the same place and putting him in the same place, but not so that he was taken from the earth where he was formed, and placed elsewhere - namely in Paradise. Also, on earth there are no talking serpents, nor do angels bar man from anyplace on earth, as with eden [the texts]

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. The text says the exact opposite. The animals are specifically created FOR THE USE OF ADAM TO FIND HIM A WIFE.

---

Exactly, and 'to find him a wife' means Eve was not yet seperated from Adam, and yet played no character role in the scene at this time.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The OT is contextual, not chronological].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. The story of Genesis 2 is chronological. Adam is created. God notices that Adam is alone. God creates animals in an attempt to find a wife for him. None of the animals are suitable, therefore god creates Eve.

---

One of the rules of understanding the OT is it is not chronological but contextual. This does not mean things are not listed in their chronological order, as with Genesis 1/1, but that the context transcends. Here, extensions of the first chapter is in ch 2 or even elsewhere, where it is placed for its other contextual aspect. There are also rules which govern allignments of texts to each other, when they appear in different places.While in ch 1 the generic created life forms are listed, chronologicslly and contextual to this created chronology, this chapter does not expound that the animals predated Eve's seperation from Adam; this is explained in ch 2, where we find that Adam confronts the animals and names them - while Eve is yet not emergent. Eve is seperated 'after' Adam and the animals scene.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but w/o any contradictions with the conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. This is not surprising since Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct and separate creation myths from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text.

---

Your evidence?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
their chronological emergence in the six cosmic days [not earth-calendar 24 hour days].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. The days in Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. That's what "evening and morning" means: A literal, 24-hour day.

---

The sun's luminosity did not appear till the 4th cosmic day: so how can you allocate hours to the first three days? You will find that the OT calendar does NOT include the creational days, and Israel is specifically told when the first day of the first month will begin, observed as the first NY - namely after the creation days. That the days and nights you refer to are not 24-hour days is also supported in the psalms of David ['A 1000 years are but a day to YOU/God']. The OT calendar is regarded the world's most accurate and exacting, with no errors or contradictions in all its 1000s of dates and dob and dod's; the inclusion of ch 1 as 24 hour historical days will corrupt this calendar.

quote:

---

You're right that Genesis 1 and 2 don't make any sense when placed next to each other. That's because they're separate, distinct creation stories from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text. For an even clearer and more startling example of this hatchet job of an editing, see the story of Noah. Two stories of a flood are told in parallel. That is why Noah does things like enter the ark twice, the fact that the animals come in both "twos" and "sevens," that the ark comes to rest twice, etc.

---

There is hatchet job. Everything in ch 1 and 2 are perfectly alligned. This debate has been well handled generations ago with scholars. There is no two creation stories. Ch 2 pointedly begins with 'AND' - signifying a continueing narrative.See also, 'AND' which is the first word also of Exodus, and a response to the last statement in the previous chapter, namely of Pharoah's decree to kill the first born hebrew male children. This is followed by the appropriate responsa, namely the arrival of Moses from his parent's marraige and his birth: 'And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi'. The 'AND' is a contnuation of the previous statement and narrative, in the two chapters. The same applies with gen 1 & 2.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, nor does the messiah need resurrecting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

That's because the Messiah does not die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

---

The messiah is to be a man - an ordinary one, subject to all man's traits, same as with Moses, also a messiah of his generation. The criteria for a Messiah ID is listed copiously in Isaiah, whereby all factors must be evident. I agree this has not happened according to the OT rendition, while the NT demands a totally different premise.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You say that because you don't believe that the divine revelation of God includes the books of the New Testament. The New Testament tells us that the ancient serpent is the Devil and Satan. I believe this.

---

The NT should also stand on its own vindication, while the OT understanding does not depend on this. The statement the serpent is only related to another animal is incorrect not by virtue of the NT, but on the veracity of its own writings.It is clear animals do not talk and walk on this planet. Thus the text says they were removed to a enigmatic realm, then cast down to this realm again, which realm was then barred by angels swirling firey swords. If the text is deliberated, the NT is not required here.

There is only one antidote for bad/evil/satan/devil/etc - or what is percieved of this. It is the law. Faith and belief do not perform the same trick, nor the joining/belonging in any particular religious group or ideology - unless one has no means of observing the law, and is restricted by some factor - then prayers/mercy become applicable.That only freedom and free will becomes required as the precedent, and thereafter the law kicks in, is seen in the freedom of slaves in Egypt, followed by the giving of the Law at Sinai.It is a fundamental error to assume the law of Sinai does not foster the highest form of love, and is usually termed fire and brimstone - eronously. The requirement of love is nowhere better displayed and illustrated than in the OT. Love must have two precedent factors before it, as seen in the listings of the 10 commandments: HONESTY [not to take the name in vain refers to honesty]; and RESPECT [honor thy parents/the hoary/the wise, etc]. For what is love w/o honesty and respect as its foundation?

quote:

---

The contrast is between the knowledge of good and evil and the divine life of God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil are opposed to the tree of life.

---

I think this makes a lot of sense, specially with the wording in the texts. Also, this alligns with the duality factor, which is seen pervasively in Genesis [heaven/earth, light/darkness, day/night, male/female]. Basically, there is no 'ONE' [singularity] in the universe; thus the Creator is only declared as ONE - the singularity is unique and transcendent.I think this duality represents the choice factor, pervasive in all places and levels, of two alligned and counter-parts of each other, and the hovering conrol factor is the ONE. This also represents an intergration, which when cosidered well, negates any form of randomity. Here, even religions and belief systems have to be alligned yet counter-parts; this causes commonality and division; both are requited for the subsistance of all things, and a religion cannot survive w/o this counter aspect from the status quo, or that no other religion equals it. So the tree of knowledge represents this duality.

quote:

---

What did happen? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is "the OTHER way". It does not really matter what it is called. It was the way not prescribed by God. It was the way warned against by God. It was the way NOT of God's choosing. It was the way leading to death.

---

This becomes very complex, yet its answer can be simple. The first factor in the preamble is that nothing whatsover escapses God's knowledge or sanction to exist. Freedom of choice is bestowed and it is limited [probably for our own protection, increasing as we develop], and it can only subsist where there is an opposing factor, which brings us to the 'laws', or where a moral/ethical decision has to be made. There is no freedom of choice outside this premise, and the reason other life forms do not have it - they cannot sin because they make no moral/ethical decisions.The next factor is what is percieved as bad to us, may be not bad from a higher POV, and what we thought was good may likewise not be so. The serpent represents the counter negative opposing force, and impacts everything we do, on all levels. No doubt we may feel and experience suffering in the instant of this impact, but IMHO, it does not represent a counter force to the Creator, but a force deliberately created to serve a purpose: it is a counter to the other force [positive/negative]. Sometimes, peoples and nations undergo exile and persecution - yet 1000s of years later, it becomes the only thing which saved them, and all in that region not exiled become lesser for it, if not non-existent anymore. Thus, judgement is of the Lord, as the saying goes.Another example is, a saturated sinner may be better than a very devout soul: who knows the awesome impact the sinner was placed in, while the devout one may not have been subject to overwhelimg temptation: here, the sinner can come up trumps - because on one occassion he helped a prositute for no self motive or reward, and expended a great deal in this regard - rendering this act greater than the whole life of the devout. We are not privy to the big picture.

quote:

---

The law is like the medicine which taken in causes the cancer within to be visible. The Law of God exposes the depths of man's pollution and corruption. Man has been joined to Satan. And the Law of God exposes that man is incurable and only good for condemnation.

​

Please meditate on just this much. Reply if there is something you wish to reply to. Then I will continue.

---

There is no freedom w/o the law, because freedom comes from, and is protected by the law. I don't think man is incurable: despite all the bad seen, there is progress and elevation - but the bad is more noticeable. Also, it is not the act of performing a bad which is the critical factor; it is only how we act after the bad - else mercy, forgiveness, etc has no meaning. Everyone has to and will sin - it does not mean everyone is bad and to be foresaken. We see this in the adam/eve story; there is a blessing hidden in the punishments listed: humans were still made the dominant and pivotal factor of creation, and thus responsibility was also attached. We have to judge humanity accumutively, not individually only. I don't thing man is incurable, even if he remains incurable and keeps ever failing: he was obviously not made to be perfect, and given new, testing situations all the time. an was born and inherited certain dispositions, and will be judged according to those factors. In 99% of the cases, man is innocent when probed deeper: we never chose to be here.

quote:

---

God's way was to impart His life into man. God's way was to take the good man that He created and join him to Himself in a union of the divine with the human; a mingling of the Creator with the creature; a blending of the uncreated with the created; a "organic" oneness of God and man.

---

These are particularised and preferred beliefs; and the result is that everyone is subject the the law, no matter which belief system they are attached to. A bad christian is not better than a good hindhu; etc. This comes into another topic, and maybe we need a thread asking: THE MESSAGE - OR THE MESSENGER?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Why is the law of God not mentioned in Genesis?

---

It is mentioned. Genesis contains 7 laws, called the Noahic laws, encumbent upon all humanity. These include Monotheism, not to murder, not to consume live animal meat, and the first commandment in Genesis, 'go forth and multiply' [go forthightly means via lawful marraige].

quote:

---

Why did God not spend considerable time to teach Adam how to obey the law of God?

​

Why was there not a contrast between the forbidden tree and the law?

---

God did teach Adam - bu giving him a command. The OT is very pristine and minimalist; it obviously includes an inculcation, via words or other means, while the command is sufficient. There were no explanations given to the Israelites also - but still the first utterences related to laws. However, there is no transgression before the law is given: in Adam's case the law was given him.There need not have been a contrast - the command not to eat related to the fruit of the tree, meaning both or either of them.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.