|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How did Adam and Eve know good from evil? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
"Rrhain" writes:
You're considering performing Action X. Somebody tells you that it is beetaratagang to do it and clerendipity not to. Somebody else tells you that no, it's the other way around. Do you do it or not?
Excellent post. I think this is what the OP was getting at -> how can you make an informed decision without knowledge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Adding to the text again? I don't recall it ever saying animals died in Eden.
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.
Adam and Eve were bever meant to live forever. See Genesis 3:22:
quote: Animals were not and therefore should not be considered to have lived forever.
According to the text, neither did Adam and Eve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Peg avoids the question. She has been given the exact same information that Adam and Eve had, and yet she continues to claim ignorance (note the significance of that fact).
One leads to heaven. The other to hell. Which is which? Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One figure is telling you one thing, the other is telling you the opposite. Which do you choose? Why are you hesitating? You're not stupid. Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
*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*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Would it help if Rrhain told you it was beetaratagang and I told you it was clerendipity?
Because that's what happened to Adam adn Eve. One person told them it was bad, the other told them it was ok. Turns out the one who told them it was ok was telling the truth. They didn't die that day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
So might I ask,"How did Adam know what 'to die' meant."
Just as you can't answer RRhain's question as to Beetaratagang or clerendipity. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2439 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hi Peg.
This thread is fascinating. 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. Rrhain's right: neither of you is stupid. So it is particularly telling that I can't imagine you don't recognize your dilemma and the indefensible position in which you find yourselves, at least from a reasonable, rational standpoint. Don't feel bad, guys. As far as I can ascertain from an (admittedly) cursory search, no one else can come up with an acceptable response to the underlying basis of Rrhain's question, either. I'll leave it to you to think about the ramifications. This inability and/or refusal to answer a simple question speaks volumes. Have a good one. "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
ncorrect. They are exactly the same thing. Adam and Eve don't know what "good" and "evil" are, just as you don't know what "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" are. Adam and Eve were presented with a choice between good and evil: Listen to "good" god or "evil" serpent. Since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet and thus didn't know what "good" and "evil" were, how could they make a legitimate choice? What resources could they call upon to help them know which path to take? I have stated these ressources early on in the discussion. It's not about listening to 'good' God or 'evil serpent', all the while not knowing what good and evil is. It's about listening to God, the creator of everything. The same God which gave you dominion over all creation, as opposed to the serpent, which you are supposed to rule over. One tells you eating the fruit is 'bad', the other tells you it is good. They obviously have contradictory definitions of the words, but since you don't have the ability to make such a judgement yourself, you can't take a decision based on this. However, you have the information to make the logical choice to trust God. In fact, in any situation of trust, it is because you are lacking something in regards to that specific situation. In this situation it is the knowledge of good and evil, which makes this the situation of trust. This aspect of trust in the decision making you are skipping over, because when it is added into the equation your gibberish analogy doesn't stand up, as it is no longer a crap-shoot 50/50 decision anymore. And I'm sorry if you feel I am avoiding any issue, but in fact I am discussing exactly your analogy. Just because I am arguing that it is not a correct analogy given the situation does not mean I am avoiding it ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
You do realize that you just said that Adam and Eve were justified in listening to the snake. God has shown himself to be incompetent and the serpent is described as being very intelligent. I have a hard time seeing how you can conclude from God's act of creation that he is incompetent. you would have made it another way, so it makes him incompetent ? And your previous description a particular event is so biased in it's description that everything that would make God 'incompetent' in the sequence is in fact added by you unto the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Gen 2 has a primitive and anthropomorphic god that screwed up his first creation attempt and had to alter it (Adam was alone and the animals didn't do it so he had to try again with Eve), who losses his main dish and ends up stumbling upon them hiding, and in the end goes: oh crap, I better put guards at the gate so they do take this even further and become immortals.
He was hardly competent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
quote: There may not be an acceptable response, but a reasonable one would be that the story is a fabrication; a myth used to scare people into submission.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2439 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey KH.
There may not be an acceptable response, but a reasonable one would be that the story is a fabrication; a myth used to scare people into submission. Indeed, but getting a literalist to see reason is like trying to herd cats. "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024