Adam & Eve to be blamed, or god!

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.

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?

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.

They have two conflicting sets of information. God says: don't eat because you'll die. The serpent says: why would God say such a thing? He's only saying that because he's afraid you'll be like him.Adam and Eve had a choice plain and simple. Listen to God or listen to the serpent. The desire to be like God was greater than the desire to obey God. A good question. It can be inferred that Satan's fall occured before man's fall and that God judged satan, but satan said: wait a minute, thats not fair. So God made men to duplicate satan's situation before the fall and exhibit his fairness to angels through men. So Adam and Eve's situation was like Satan's before the fall. They were made perfect and were given the opportunity to choose for or against God. God's purpose would have succeeded whether they succeeded or failed. It was their choice, but God knew what they would choose and planned for it by sending Christ to cover the sin. By doing this human history is a lot more interesting, I think. I'm glad they sinned. If they hadn't I wouldn't be here to be redeemed and reside with God.

Thank you for your reply. Gen 2:17 but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.- Literal translation of the Holy Bible (LITV).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. - ASV and KJVWhat is translated "thou shalt surely die" in the KJV and ASV in the original is simply "muth muth". Muth is the word for death. Muth is said twice. Some scholars translate this to simply mean emphasis. But in the LITV literal translation it is "dying you shall die."My pastor had studied the original languages in the Bible for over 60 years and has repeatedly taught how this is the correct interpretation: dying you shall die. It has something to do with the prefixes or suffixes. I don't remember all the details in the Hebrew. But anyways it indicates an immediate present active death and a future death.Rrhain erroneously assumes that every time a translation of the bible says, death, it is a physical death. In fact, there are seven (If I recall right) different deaths mentioned in the Bible: physical, spiritual, sexual, the 2nd death, etc...IOW, in the day they ate the fruit they would immediately die spiritually due to their status of unrighteousness, and become mortal resulting in eventual physical death.Ever since, we are born spiritually dead, thus the need for spiritual rebirth as Jesus explained to Nicodemus.Hope that helps.

This is the question Rrhain refuses to entertain.One way of looking at it is that if they were unable to become imperfect by rebelling against God, then they wouldn't really have free will. They had to have the option and the temptation to allow meaningful choice for or against God, which is what the entire set up was supposed to show: God's holiness remains inspite of the execution of the volition of his creations. Another good question. IMO the knowledge of good and evil did not lie in the tree itself, but in the action. In other words, its not as if by eating the fruit they magically became conscious of sin. Instead it was the decision to disobey God in order to become like him that imputed the knowledge of evil into them.Their intent was to be like god and disobey him. This in itself is evil. So they did by all means choose to have an evil intent that brought about the action, which was sin. Not sure what you mean. If evil is the absence of good, then it seems like pure innocence would inherently be good. But maybe this is not what you are getting at.

Thank you for your reply. I think I understand. Yes, I think they would experience emotion. However, they certainly would not have the range of experiences those of us with the knowledge of good and evil have.I suppose this is another purpose of God allowing them to fail in the first place. By knowing good and evil, experiencing suffering and blessing, justice and injustice, we learn more about God and have a complete experience and appreciation for Him. In other words, how can you appreciate the light if you've never experienced darkness? How can you appreciate good if you've never experienced bad? How can you appreciate justice and righteousness if you've never known injustice and unrighteousness?It is interesting to note this duality in the six days of creation and even the rest of the Bible. On the first day, God creates light and deems the light good and separates it from darkness. On every day there is evening and morning: the coming of darkness followed by the coming of light (good).

When they were created and when we are reborn spirituallythrough belief, we posess the filling of the Holy Spirit, who creates a human spirit within us. It's hard to explain, but... it is our human spirit which is God's nature within us... sort of our tie to God and his life. It is our spirit that gives us eternal life... Sigh... that sounds really wierd and hokey... I don't know how to explain it exactly. Our spirit is the immortal common ground creation of God in us. There, maybe that's clear enough.Now, God being perfect justice and righteousness cannot reside in unrighteousness. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they commited their first act of unrighteousness. God's spirit could no longer reside in them. It is God's spirit in us which sustains our human spirit, therefore they died spiritually. Well, you have to understand that this whole story was communicated to people who were spiritually dead to teach them spiritual truth. In the OT God used examples to teach the people spiritual truth as in the levitical laws and other stories. In the story of Adam and Eve, the separation of God's spirit from them is symbolized by God's removal of them from the garden with the tree of life in it. Before their sin, God walked with them in the garden; afterwards they lost this personal relationship with Him. This relationship was renewed through faith in the messiah and the sacrificial law in the OT and faith in Christ, the final perfect sacrifice in the new Testament. The occurence of two deaths is indicated by the dual usage of "muth" by God's description of the consequences. Literally, "dying you shall die". Yes. Anyone who is has perfect righteousness is in a communal relationship with God. No one can have perfect righteousness apart from him. So Adam and Eve, being created perfect had spiritual life."For by one man sin entered the world and death by sin..." Read Romans 5:12, it goes into spiritual death and reconciliation.Also, Jesus' teachings to Nicodemus indicate that we are all born spiritually dead and need spiritual rebirth to have eternal life. "You must be born of water (amniotic fluid indicating physical birth) and the spirit (indicating spiritual birth)."

I guess that would be your natural inclination since you are an atheist. To glorify God, prove his justice and righteousness to the angels, to create a unique spiritual species that will of it's own free will learn about God and reside with him in a personal relationship in eternity. I realize you enjoy a cynical viewpoint of all things relating to God, but you will never understand anything about what you are criticizing with this attitude.

Portmaster, you may be an atheist or agnostic, but I like your style. It's good to know all of you are not all bitter cynics. So true. This is where the role of the Holy Spirit comes in. Those who believe in Christ are guided by the Holy Spirit when they read. It is the Holy Spirit who correctly illuminates the scripture. If you want to make God out to be nasty, in your mind you make him nasty. If you are guided by the Holy Spirit, his righteousness is revealed. Also, if you believe the ENTIRE Bible is the inspired word of God, then the message is cohesive throughout the Bible, meaning you can take passages like the one in revelation associating Satan with the serpent and apply it here. This does not contradict what the original audience would see either. The original audience believed God was holy and would therefore view him in this light and the serpent as the tester or the accuser or the evil one. A good point. I guess if you do not believe in God, then you have ability to consider any interpretation valid. If you do believe in God, then there is only ONE correct interpretation. So I think a believer is the only one who is justified in believing that he has a correct interpretation.This is what makes me wonder why Rrhain and and Knight are so determined that their negative view of God in the passage is right. I mean if they don't believe in God or an absolute interpretation, what makes them think they have found the absolute correct interpretation depicting God as "Nasty"? It's like they're on a mission to defame God.Anyway, I appreciate your objective attitude. Well, before they sinned, there was no need to reproduce. They were immortal and had no need of a savior. It is only after they sin that God gives the curse of pains in child bearing and Adam declares Eve's name meaning "living, for she would become the mother of all the living".

Neither... I'm just saying I can't rule it out. Yes, very much so in the last few months.