How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

It's simple: They didn't. The entire premise for the theology of the Bible is based upon a falsehood.Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil and thus, they did not sin when they ate from the tree of knowledge. No, they were not stupid. They were simply incapable of understanding what they were doing.In fact, Adam and Eve had already "sinned" long before they ate from the tree of knowledge. They were naked. You will note that the very first thing they panic over after having their eyes opened and becoming as gods, knowing good and evil, is not panic over having broken the commandment of god.No, it's panic over them being naked.So clearly the "fall" has nothing to do with "original sin" or anything of the kind.Now, there will be those who try to say that it's metaphorical, that there wasn't any magical properties to the tree, but they are deliberately ignoring the direct text which states the exact opposite. Remember, Adam and Eve "became as gods."In fact, god panics over this and realizes he needs to throw them out of Eden lest they complete their apotheosis and eat from the tree of life and gain immortality.You are assuming that the text of the Bible is supposed to make sense.

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

Yet if you look at the account, we learn that Eve DID know the consequences of eating, so she wasnt stupid, she understood the reason why she should not eat from the tree

---

Incorrect. The fact that Eve was capable of repeating what god told her doesn't mean she understood anything. Remember, Adam and Eve were already sinning. They were naked. The very first thing they panic over once they have their eyes opened and become as gods, knowing good and evil, is their nakedness.Understanding consequences doesn't mean you understand what you're doing.And at any rate, you're missing the point: God has told her that if she eats of the tree, she will die. The serpent (who is not the devil as there is no such thing as the devil in Judaism) told her that no, she will not die but will instead become as gods, knowing good and evil.So how is Eve supposed to know whose advice to take? The ability to make this choice depends upon the ability to understand good and evil...which Eve doesn't have yet because she hasn't eaten from the tree. Ignoring for the moment the fact that god lied and the serpent was telling the truth, the question you need to answer is explain how Eve is supposed to know to follow god when she doesn't know that god is good because she doesn't know what good and evil are?We're back to one of my questions that nobody ever answers. It would be very nice, Peg, if you would be the first:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?One of those paths will lead you to eternal bliss while the other will lead you to eternal damnation. You're not stupid, and you understand the consequences, so which do you choose?

quote:

---

Yet if that were true, why are they spoken of as historical people by Jesus Christ?

---

For the same reason that all cultures speak of their fables and legends as real people. By your logic, the entire Greek pantheon is a reality because the Ancient Greeks talk of them as if they were real.So Beowulf really destroyed Grendel? Achilles really was dipped in the river Styx by Thetis? Japan was formed from the union of Izanagi and Izanami?If you are going to demand that your personal mythology is taken seriously, then you must extend that courtesy to other mythologies, too, for they are believed just as sincerely and with just as much evidence as yours.

quote:

---

And why is the perfect life of Jesus compared to the perfect life of Adam? If Adam wasnt a real person, then to compare a real man to him would not make sense.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. Why would holding up someone to an imaginary ideal not make sense? Do you believe the Buddha is real? And yet, the Buddha achieved a state of perfect enlightenment and people are compared to the Buddha all the time.Again, if you're going to demand that your mythology be taken seriously, then you must extend the same courtesy to those mythologies that aren't yours.

quote:

---

It only makes sense if Adam was a real person.

---

So you admit that Sissyphus was a real person for nobody would compare themselves to him unless he were real, right?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

Mans view is not Gods view

---

That's not what the Bible says. We've eaten from the tree of knowledge and became as gods. The only thing that has prevented our complete apotheosis is the failure to eat from the tree of life before we were kicked out.

quote:

---

Inequality is a man-made phenomenon.

---

So the devil is a man?And funny, I recall god giving humans dominion over animals.And, in fact, we find god panicking over the actions of humans again with the tower of Babylon and deliberately, purposefully, and consciously dividing them.And this doesn't even begin to deal with the orders from god to take slaves (which not even Jesus condemned).It would seem that inequality is a god-made phenomenon.

quote:

---

Is that because of God? No, you know its not.

---

But man is made in the image of god. There is nothing we have done that god hasn't already.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Remember, Adam and Eve were already sinning. They were naked.

---

​

i dont know where you get that idea from

---

From the text. You have actually read the text, yes? Ergo, running around naked is a sin.

quote:

---

God asked them why they had covered themselves and he also asked them 'who told you that you were naked?'

---

Precisely: They ate from the tree of knowledge and became as gods, knowing good and evil, and their very first thought is shame over being naked. Nobody told them: They gained that knowledge from eating from the tree of knowledge. Your claim that the tree of knowledge didn't actually give them anything new is trivially shown to be false. The text directly says the opposite.They didn't realize they were naked before they ate from the tree of knowledge. No, not because they were stupid but rather because they didn't understand good and evil. Only after they ate from the tree, and without anybody telling them anything, they realized that they were naked and understood the sin of being naked.

quote:

---

God did not view their nakedness as sin

---

That's not what the Bible says. You have actually read the Bible, yes? Before we are even told that they had eaten from the tree, we are given a specific and direct example of the fact that Adam and Eve were innocent (not stupid) by pointing out that they were sinning and yet not ashamed.And even more evidence that you haven't actually read the very text you claim as your holy book, you seem to have forgotten that god gives them clothes: Why would God bother giving them clothes if he didn't think there was a problem with being naked?

quote:

---

So your idea that their nakedness was sinful is just wrong and completely out of harmony with what is actually written.

---

Except the text directly contradicts you: Why would you ignore this direct statement?

quote:

---

then you are making the same mistake that she made. You are taking the word of the devil over the word of God the creator.

---

And once again, you miss the point.Ignoring the fact that the serpent is NOT the devil (for there is no such thing as the devil in Judaism and you can only understand Genesis in the context of Judaism as it was written by Jews for Jews and only makes sense in a Jewish context), you have to explain why it is that Eve is supposed to understand why god is good when she doesn't understand good and evil. She hasn't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. Therefore, when presented with a choice between good and evil, how is she supposed to know to choose good? She doesn't know what good is.And I see you have avoided the direct question I politely asked you to answer:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Which do you choose? Why are you hesitating? You are not stupid. You understand the consequences, so why have you refused to answer?

quote:

---

You are taking the word of the devil over the word of God the creator.

---

Where is this "devil" character you mention? There is no devil to be found in Genesis. This is not surprising because there is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. You weren't trying to impose a Christian vision upon a Jewish text, were you?So ignoring your primary failure of analysis, let's move onto the more fundamental problem: The serpent was right and god was wrong. God said that if they were to eat from the tree of knowledge, they would be physically dead before the sun set. The serpent said that if they were to eat from the tree of knowledge, they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.Well, they ate from the tree of knowledge and they did not die. Instead, they became as gods, knowing good and evil. Therefore, by plain inspection, we find that god was wrong and the serpent (NOT the devil for there is no such thing as the devil in Judaism) was right.Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

The apostle Paul explained that Eve had been 'thoroughly decieved' by the serpent

---

Except she wasn't. She was told the truth. God said she would die. The serpent (NOT the devil for there is no such thing as the devil in Judaism) said they would become as gods, knowing good and evil: You have to read the text in order to understand it, Peg. You cannot remain innocent. You have to eat from the tree of knowlege in order to understand.Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

IOW, what he told her was false, a lie. Yes they became like God, but in what sense?

---

In the sense of knowing good and evil. The text directly says so. You did read the text, yes? Are you saying god was lying in Genesis 3:22 when he said that Adam and Eve became as gods, knowing good and evil?So it would seem that Paul got it completely backwards. Eve wasn't deceived at all. She was told the utter truth. She didn't understand that, since she hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet, but she chose truth over a lie.Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

it was only in the sense that, like God, they now began to decide for themselves what was good and bad.

---

Incorrect. They weren't deciding for themselves. They were deciding as gods. Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

Her understanding of what is good and evil came down to what Gods view of good and evil was.

---

You realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes? First, you were saying that she "decided for herself what was good and bad." Now you're saying that she understood god's opinion of good and evil. Which is it?And again, you miss the point: She hasn't eaten from the tree yet and thus has no idea what good and evil are. Therefore, how is she supposed to know that god is good when she doesn't know what "good" is?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Which do you choose? Why is it you are refusing to answer? That is really the only question I want you to answer. How many times am I going to have to ask you this question before you answer?

quote:

---

This is when her dependence on God should have directed her to seek the answer from the one who made the decision as to what was good and what was bad.

---

Why? How on earth is she supposed to know that when she doesn't know what good and evil are? She hasn't eaten from the tree yet and thus is still innocent. She's not stupid, but she doesn't understand what good and evil are. We know this because she's running around naked and is not ashamed. So when she is given a choice between good and evil, how is she supposed to know to choose good when she doesn't know what good is?Beetaratagang or clerendipity? How many times do I have to ask you before you answer?

quote:

---

But rather then seek direction from her father, she went ahead on her own and made a really bad decision...one that led to her death.

---

Huh? She was going to die anyway. That's what the tree of life was about. Eve wasn't immortal.But you still haven't explained how it was she was supposed to know to follow god when she was innocent and therefore didn't know what good and evil were. How does one choose good when you don't know what good is?Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Why have you still not answered?

quote:

---

Eating from the tree was of no benefit to her therefore independence from God was of no benefit to her.

---

But this has nothing to do with independence. It has to do with knowledge.And you still completely miss the point: How is it Eve could have sinned when she was innocent and didn't know what sin was? After all, she was running around naked and god let it slide...which is only appropriate because she was innocent and didn't understand what she was doing. Every parent knows this. If you put a delicate Ming vase on a rickety pedestal and then introduce a toddler, nobody is surprised to eventually hear a crash followed by crying no matter how many times you tell the kid, "Don't touch!" It isn't the kid's fault. He doesn't know any better. He's innocent and doesn't understand what you mean. If you don't want the kid touching the vase, you put it out of reach of the kid.Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?You are in precisely the same position as Eve: You are faced with a choice between eternal bliss and eternal damnation. Which do you choose? How many times do I need to ask you this before you answer? You're not stupid. Why are you hesitating?

---

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 still avoids the question. How very telling:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

Show me where the text says that Gods view was that their nakedness...the nakedness he made them in and called good, was a sin.

---

I already did. Read my post and you'll see it. Look for the word "ashamed."Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

or they began to decide for themselves what was good and bad and they viewed their nakedness as something bad

---

Except the text doesn't say this. Instead, it says that they became as gods, knowing good and evil. Instead, it says that god realized that they now understood their sin. Instead, it says that god made them clothes.I gave you the verses. You did read my post before responding, yes?Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

show me the text that says God viewed their nakedness as a sin.

---

I already did. Read my post and you'll see it. Look for the word "ashamed."Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

why not give them clothes in the first place?

---

Because they were innocent and thus didn't know good from evil. What would be the point? Suppose they forgot to put on clothes? Why would it matter since they don't understand why clothes are required? How can you impress upon someone that it is important to put on clothes when they are incapable of understanding why it is "bad" not to do so? They don't know what "bad" is.Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

Seriously, your arguments are off the wall.

---

Says the woman who has avoided a very simple question literally for years: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 avoids my question yet again.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.

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

Boy, you have been asking that question for a long time. I'll take clerendipity. What do I win?

---

Well, if I tell you then I won't be able to ask the question of anybody else, now, will I?Peg completely understands the consequences of the choice. She is not stupid. One will lead to eternal bliss while the other leads to eternal damnation.So why does she refuse to answer?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

but as a christian

---

As a Christian, it is the height of bigotry to tell a Jew what a Jewish text means. Genesis was written by Jews, for Jews, and it can only be understood in a Jewish context. If you want your religious tradition to be given respect, you must show that same respect to others.Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

i listen first and foremost to jesus and the apostles and John told us that the serpent is the devil.

​

Revelation 12:7-9
...
John 8:44

---

But neither of those passages is referring to the serpent from the garden.First, your translation is wrong for the Revelation quote. It isn't "original" serpent. It's "old" serpent. And by "serpent," they weren't referring to the garden. Greek metaphors used "serpent" as a term for wisdom just as we use "owl" as a term for wisdom...straight out of Greek mythology where Athena, the goddess of wisdom, had the owl as her patron. That's why the symbol of prophecy for the Greeks was the serpent. The symbol for medicine, the caduceus, is a staff with two snakes twining around it. That's because the symbol for Apollo, god of knowledge, was the serpent.This is not a reference to Genesis but to something even more fundamental.Second, there is nothing in John 8 that has any connection to Genesis. Referring to the devil as a murderer is, again, a reference to something more fundamental, not Genesis.Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

many do not believe the tree had special properties that imparted anything to them.

---

And many people believe that they're the reincarnation of Julius Caesar. That doesn't mean they're right.The text does not say what you think it says. You may believe it does, but it doesn't.Now, answer my question, please: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.

You avoid my question yet again, Peg.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?You understand the consequences. You are not stupid. So why are you refusing? Surely you know which is which.

---

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.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't think your analogy is correct since for it to be correct, you would have to identify which of Beetaratagang or clerendipity lead to eternal damnation and which to eternal life.

---

But that's just it. You don't know. You are incapable of knowing. Until you eat from the tree of knowledge, I could go on and on for days about what it means, but you would never understand.In the story, Adam and Eve were given a choice between good and evil. Because of their choice, all of creation was cursed. But in order for such a curse to be legitimate, it depends upon them understanding exactly what it was they were choosing. But since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet, there's no way they could have understood. "But god told them!" Yes. And? What does that mean? How are Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should listen to god when they don't understand what "good" means?Remember, Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm: They were naked and not ashamed. But god didn't seem to care about this since, as anybody with any sense can understand, they didn't know what they were doing. No, they're not stupid. They're innocent. They don't understand the implications of what they're doing and despite that, nobody gets upset.So why on earth is the tree of knowledge any different? Note, I'm not saying that there are no consequences for what they did. After all, there aren't any global effects from being naked. But understanding morality? That can have a profound effect upon people's behaviour and thus how they interact with the world.But even so, the act of eating from the tree is no different from the act of running around naked: Adam and Eve were innocent and incapable of comprehending what it was they were doing, no matter how much god sits them down and says, "Don't touch!" So when the serpent comes along and says that what god is saying isn't true, how on earth they supposed to know to ignore it? They don't know what good and evil are.So the same thing applies to you: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? There's no way for you to understand what they mean, and yet you are now forced to choose. What resources can you draw upon to guide you in your choice?

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

no comment from you on the revelation verse and the accusation that the NWT is wrong?

---

Tit for tat, darling. You answer my question and then I'll answer yours.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?You're not stupid and you understand the consequences of your choice. So why are you hesitating?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?How many times do I have to ask you this simple question before you answer?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 writes:

quote:

---

do animals have morals?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

If they do, then yes, we could explain morals without God.

---

So are you going to change your position or are you going to run away from your own logic?Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

his analogy with Beetaratagang and clerendipity is still flawed because told him which choice led to which consequences.

---

And thus, you show you miss the point.Adam and Eve didn't know which choice led to which consequences, either. They were innocent and incapable of understanding no matter how patient god was in trying to explain.And even then, why should they listen to god's explanation of what "good" is? Your reaction depends upon Adam and Eve already knowing that god is "good" but that is impossible because they haven't eaten from the tree yet and thus don't know what "good" is.Now, I am cheating a little. You know what "salvation" and "damnation" mean. Therefore, you understand that this choice is fraught with consequences. But rather than speak gibberish, the point is still the same:Once choice leads down one path. The other choice leads down a different path.If you are incapable of understanding where those paths lead, how are you possibly responsible for the choice that you make? What resources can you draw upon to guide your choice such that it is an informed one?

quote:

---

Now you can argue that they didn't understand what the consequences were, but then in this case another more refined analogy would be needed then the one he is presenting.

---

But that's the point. You don't understand just like they didn't understand.How are "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" from your perspective any different from "good" and "evil" from theirs?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

actually the bible says that animals ARE souls.
Genesis 1:20, 24 says Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls....let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.

---

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.Or, perhaps, you can choose the third option which is that because animals have souls but no morality, they are all damned for eternal suffering, no exceptions, every last one of them. Is that your claim?Now, please answer my question: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.