God’s glitch in Eden. A & E had to break God’s second command to accomplish the first

I have to take issue with your attempt at a literal translation of Genesis. I'm sure by now you are tired of me not meeting your questions head on. But I don't really see an alternative here.I don't see any evidence that God commanded Adam to reproduce before he provided Adam with a mate or before Adam and Ever were kicked out of the garden.Yes, Genesis 1 does include command to be fruitful and multiply, but that command is mentioned after the statements that men and women were created. Genesis 2 adds no details that provide us with anything to counter the idea that God did things in a reasonable order. In short, there no foolproof way to merge the details of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to verify that God did the silly stuff you attribute to him. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be to try to reject a fitting together that actually is logical.Further, there is absolutely no indication one way of the other regarding whether Adam and Eve had sexual relations prior to the serpent incident.It's also pretty clear that not every detail of what happened is discussed in those early chapters of Genesis. Where did all of those people come from that Cain feared would kill him after he killed his brother? Where did Enoch's wife come from?I also have to note that a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 makes no sense anyway and that we know stuff did not happen as described. So why nit pick these particular details?

So your opinion is that adults learning what their genitals were for makes them ashamed of themselves? In my opinion, that's pretty inane. Do you suppose that all of that time Adam spent naming the animals did not provide him any clue as to what a penis was?It seems likely that Adam at least, knew exactly what his Johnson could do, and that only his disobedience made him ashamed of having sex.And the fact still remains that there is no Biblical support for the idea that God commanded Adam to be fruitful before there was even an Eve and every reason to believe that Genesis does not say that God was an idiot.

The above reasoning along with some of your other assumptions does indeed lead to the conclusion that some of God's actions in Genesis 1 and 2 were irrational.You should at least consider that maybe it is your own assumptions that are irrational.Your basic assumption here seems to be that the knowledge of sex is what Adam and Eve learned from eating of the forbidden tree. You are not the first person to suggest that. But the problem with it is that it leads to Genesis not being rational.The truth is that sex does not have any evil aspects. None. Adultery is bad, sex with children is bad, but sex itself is not evil.A car is not bad, but drinking and driving is bad, driving recklessly is bad, driving too fast for conditions is bad. The car itself has no evil aspects, yet you can do evil acts with a car. Or with a stick, or a bowl of jello.It is simply not a Biblical conclusion that sex is evil.As for your reasoning regarding a 12 year old daughter, that attempt at an argument is ridiculous on its face. Anyone who teaches a 12 year old that sex is evil is committing child abuse. I did not want my 12 year old son or daughter to have sex. But I didn't teach them that doing so would send them to Hell, as you seem to be suggesting I must do.What do you think non-Christians tell their kids?The idea that sex is evil is simply non Biblical. It is utterly incompatible with a commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Regardless of whether you believe or do not believe the Bible to be literally true, this particular argument in favor of the Bible being wrong is total crap. It is your interpretation of the Bible that is wrong. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I provided arguments (i.e. not mere assertion like you do here) that sex has no evil aspects. But of course you ignored the argument to simply re-assert your ridiculous premise. At this point I think it is safe to assume that you have no real arguments.Does a rock have evil aspects just because you can kill someone good with a rock? Nope. A rock isn't evil and has no evil aspects. But perhaps throwing a rock through someone's window is evil.

Yes. All of human history would fit into a single volume. The "Diary of Adam"

Using your ridiculous reasoning, Adam could not know about anything. Rocks, snakes, trees, etc. Yet he clearly knew some things. This seeming contradiction is a direct result of your interpretation of the workings of the tree of knowledge. Fix that and we can end this thread on a positive note.Have you ever encountered the idea of proof by contradiction? You've laid out a classic case of it, but for some reason you are unable to understand the QED part of the proof.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.