The First Questions In The Bible

Yessir. Freewill was always there because the choice to obey was always there. You got that right.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

You're just making that up. Try actually reading Genesis.Then answer the question: Why should Adam have trusted God's word? Really think about it. Don't just parrot what you've been spoon-fed. He didn't restrict the Tree of Life. Read Genesis. Please, stop the Olympic-caliber long-jumping and think before you post. Free will (two words, by the way) is only free if there are no strings attached. The consequences may be good or bad. They may not be foreseen, but the path leading to the consequences must be freely chosen. If English isn't your first language, let me know and I'll try to take that into account. Otherwise, please stop misrepresenting me.I said that a choice not acted on is not a real choice. For example, if I "choose" a lemon or an orange from your bowl but don't actuallt take it, I haven't really made a choice. I receive no benefit from either "choice" and nobody knows what "choice" I made.On the other hand, if I choose not to commit a crime, I have chosen a different set of consequences. I receive the benefit. Everybody knows what choice I made. Who said anything about causing grief? We're talking about Adam and Eve here. They were the community. Their actions had consequences for themselves, not "grief to the community". I'm not implying selfishness? Where are you getting that?And let me remind you again, it was god who said they became more Godlike. You can argue with Him if you like. Knowledge/awareness of consequences.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Any answer is speculative opinion. There is no reductive “binary”, as you would say.
Unless this is leading somewhere it is null; but for the sake of debate:
God had numerous interactions with the Adam well before the introduction of the “talking snake”, even if you don’t consider the lovebird’s communion with God living in community with Him. Generally, most people tend to trust those they have a formidable relationship with over a stranger. Again, I speculatively opine, that’s “why”.
Since Adam didn’t talk with the snake, but Eve, why do you suppose Adam should have trusted her word, over the word of her (their) Creator. Ringo, your favorite verse immediately precedes this restriction.
This has been overlooked until this point, but it is obviously relevant to the content and context of the story.
They did not eat from the Tree of Life and it is the only other tree mentioned by name.
The guarding of the Tree of Life was not established until after their choice to eat from the tree of Knowledge.
Do you think the fruit from this tree could have also caused them to become "more Godlike"?
To eat from the Tree of Life would have yielded immortality and God was OK with that.
Apparently, they could have eaten from this tree all along, yet no person can eat from both.
The Tree of Life is significant.
Please answer the question...
Why did God restrict the Tree of Life after after their choice to eat from the tree of Knowledge, if it was good to become “more Godlike”? You certainly do receive a benefit if the fruit is poisonous and you don’t choose it.
Unless you consider being poisoned the benefit.
Speaking of fruit, if you never had citrus fruit and I give you a bowl of lemons and oranges, how could you tell them apart by the knowledge of me saying “Here”s a bowl of lemons and oranges“. Very entertaining.
How would anybody know what choice you made?
Unless you conveyed your intentions of committing the crime to “everybody” it was only a thought.
Thank you for your support. God . Moses . Bible? Genesis 6:6
They communed with God.
Their actions consequentially caused God to be grieved in His heart.
Their actions consequentially caused them to be ashamed in their hearts Please don’t dodge.
I’m not debating whether it was Elohim who said they became “more godlike”. That’s clearly stated. Genesis 3:22
It states they became “like one of us”, which we already were, “knowing good and evil“ . not good from evil. I propose Elohim had the existing ability to differentiate good from evil. They had to learn it consequentially, which infers quite a difference in character and likeness. Again, how does this not contradict your previous theory: “The knowledge of good and evil is the ability to differentiate them”?I do not come from a religious background and I’ve rarely ever stepped in a church. I am openly admitting I don’t know my a$$ from a hole in the ground, but it would appear that Elohim did not think it a good thing that they/we became “more godlike”.
I am asking you to support your assertion that is was not perceived as a bad thing to Elohim that they became “more godlike” in the context of the story.

• Why do you suppose Adam should have trusted Eve’s word, over the Word of God (her (their) Creator)??
• What motive would you speculate caused the two lovebirds to “hide themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.”??
• Why would their actions consequentially cause them to be ashamed in their hearts if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:7
  
• Why would they hide from God if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:8
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause them to be afraid if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:10
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause the snake to be cursed above all livestock if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:14
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause a great increase in pain from child bearing if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:16
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause the ground to be cursed if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:17
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause them to not be allowed to take also from the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever (which they were allowed to do previously), if it was good to eat from the tree of Knowledge and become “more Godlike”? Genesis 3:22/ Genesis 3:24
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause God to drive them out and banish them from the Garden of Eden if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 3:23
  
• Why would their actions consequentially cause God to be grieved in His heart if it was good that they ate from the tree of Knowledge and became “more godlike“?? Genesis 6:6

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

As I said, that's complete fiction. The only recorded interaction between God and Adam before the incident was "Don't eat that tree." With Eve, there was no interaction at all. I didn't say he should have. The choice was his.You're the one who's claiming that he had reason to trust one over the other. I'm asking what that reason was. And, since this is Bible Study, your fictional speculations don't count. I didn't say it was insignificant. It's irrelevant to a discussion of what happened before they were restricted from it. They might have been eating from it or they might not have.We're talking about the first questions here, when Adam and Eve first exercised their free will and questioned God. Their subsequent adventures in mortality had no bearing on those questions. They could not have predicted the consequences. Ask God. Apparently, He didn't want them to be too Godlike. How could you know it was poisonous if you didn't choose it? You have to choose something or you'll starve to death. By the consequences. No consequences, no evidence that a choice was made. That's exactly my point in this whole exchange with you. If Adam and Eve had never had to make a decision before and they were given a choice of God or snake, how could they tell them apart? Chapter and verse? As far as I can see, their actions caused God to be worried that they were becoming too much like Him. Who cares what God thought? I'm saying that it was a good thing for them to be more like God. If He didn't like it, boo hoo, but it was a step up for them. I don't "suppose". This is Bible study. I'm going by what the Bible says. I'm not interested in why Adam "should" have trusted God. I'm only interested in what information he had to work with.The rest of your questions miss the point entirely.God said that eating the fruit made Adam and Eve like Him. If we are going to assume that "God is good", we have to conclude that being like Him is a good thing.Good things sometimes go hand in hand with bad things. Some bad consequences don't nullify the general good that came from Adam and Eve questioning God.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Genesis 2:7,15,16,19 No. If they ate from it they’d have been immortal.
Since they died, they didn’t. Very simple.
Study. That’s your response?
Seriously? But they were told the Tree of Knowledge was poisonous. God had made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground - tree that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. They weren’t in any danger of starving. So after they ate the fruit they could tell when someone was lying to them? Did you inherit this trait . it must have skipped me? Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? It’s listed in the post.
I’ve answered all your questions.
Stop dodging please. Ringo, you should be ashamed you lil” Godhead.
I wonder if they thought it was a step up?
They must’ve, they were ashamed too. You suppose as much as any of us, you bible studier, you. I’ll sleep well knowing you can’t provide any evidence for your assertions.
Anyone wanna play dodge ball? Being like God is a “good” thing. We were created “in his image” after all, right.
And I suppose by the gift of death and abundance of joyous curses that were decreed, eating from the Tree of Knowledge must be a good thing too. Not.If the sarcasm gets to you, let me know. I'll tone it down.
It’s been fun!!
I like you. You make me think.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Again, you seem to be confusing the question with the answer. We're trying to determine whether or not Adam and Eve had any reason to believe God when He told them that. That's what the knowledge of good and evil means. It isn't infallible, but it's better than no knowledge at all. Hell no. Strictly lightweight. That's what I'm here for. If you decide to think about the topic, you can still answer the question I've been asking: What reason did Adam and Eve have to trust God?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

why do you assume adam knew what he was eating? the text doesn't actually specify, it just says that eve gave it to him.

---

i see this as a great biblical paradox.god, technically, lies to adam and eve. he indicates that the tree of knowledge will kill them. he might be implying that it's poisonous, he might be implying that he'll kill them himself. neither of these two things happen. maybe it's mercy, but god tells an untruth. the serpent, however, tells them the truth. he tells them that it won't kill them, rather it will open their eyes and they'll be like gods. which god himself confirms after the fact.so the question is: should we follow god without regard to reality? or should we ignore the things he says when he's putting us on? it's hard a question. and if god doesn't think it's good that this followers are more like him, what does that say about god? is the message "think for yourself" or "don't touch my stuff?"there's a similar story, later in genesis. abraham on mount moriah, about to sacrifice his only son. god promised to make him a nation, and this is his only child, from a barren wife. should he blindly follow? or should he say, "wait a minute, now, god." does the story before it, sarah and abimelech, factor into it? maybe he doesn't isaac is his. in this case, abraham blindly follows, and god stops him. does god stop him to reward him for making the right choice? or because he was about the make the wrong one? should we factor into that abraham was known to haggle with god for the life of his family (ie: lot does god want blind obedience, or a little kvetching?

---

Absolutely, the entire scenario was meant to happen. The serpent asked Eve his question to doubt Eve's perception of what God really said. God asked Adam where he was to convict Adam of hiding from him.

You sonsa bych!!
I see it now.
They had no reason!!
This whole occurrence of history which started consequentially with Adam and Eve’s lack of faith is designed to reveal why it is important to have faith (believing in something unproved). Through the process that began in Genesis and culminates in the prophecies yet to be fulfilled in Revelation, we are shown why it is important to trust Elohim's Word instead of "talking snakes" (or presumably any creation lesser than God), even if we have no reason.
Consequentially, once we”re with the Father our spirits will have a reason.Elohim . the God/man with a plan. Edited by Bailey, : Punct.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Of course, arach, not all of us take Genesis literally. Since you will probably do it anyway, how's about a good breakdown in Hebrew about the 'kind' of death we must 'surely die'? Nothing, necessariy. It may be intended to say someting about us.

So far, so good. And then you turn around and step right back into the same hole.The story is not just a mere occurence of history. It's about all of us. It's about how we all must learn to differentiate good from evil and how we all face the consequences of our decisions.So you can't say that "they" had no reason to blindly trust God but "we" do. We are them. No. We're not. You're blaming the poor snake for things done in other books that have nothing to do with him. The point of the story is that the decision is ours whether to believe a snake or a guy who claims to be God.Edited by Ringo, : Removed "First" because there's no "Second".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

well, it's not really an issue of the hebrew here. most texts translate "surely die" pretty literally, and a lot of readers do not read it as such. i see no reason to jump to that conclusion.god wants to make it quite clear to adam that his actions will have direct consequences, and so he uses the "when you do this, you'll die. i mean it" kind of language. it literally says "in the day that..." but it's more of an idiom for one action causing another.the "eventual death" argument, while reflecting what actually happens in the text, doesn't really cut it here, in my humble opinion. it's about like god is saying, "you know, smoking will kill you." that's only 30-40 years down the line for some people, and doesn't carry a lot of weight. and we're talking 900 for adam. and it doesn't reflect the causality of the statement, that one action will have serious consequences, literally and immediately.i don't think the "spiritual death" argument cuts it either. it's about like obi-wan's famous "in a manner of speaking" line. god makes sure to emphasize death. adam clearly understands it to mean death when the serpent repeats the same line with a "not" in it. on top of that, on a close re-examination of the entire torah... there's not much in it that's spiritual at all. the closest you even get is someone mentioning "going to the grave" to be with their ancestors, and even that is probably the literal root of the modern idiomatic afterlife meaning. but god is, for the most part, a physical entity in these books.anyways, i think the only real reading of this verse is literal: god said they'd die, implied (idiomatic) or stated (literally), and he meant real, physical death. the only apologetic i can think of to avoid a lying god is about a forgiving one. ie: that god meant to kill adam and eve immediately, but commuted their sentance to simple denial of the tree of life and exile.

---

cause he'll punish us if we don't?

---

Yessir I like what yur sayin', but let’s put a jumpsuit on the poor lil’ Tree of Life that’s constantly getting benched. For the sake of debate let’s give it some sort of representation. For instance, let’s say it represents the mystery of “Godliness” as opposed to the likeness of a God (form of Godliness). Then, let’s take it a step further.It's about how we all must learn to differentiate good and evil, the attainable form of Godliness, from the incomprehensible mystery of “Godliness” that gives Life and how we all face the consequences of our decisions. We are them now, not then. Are you kidding. Everything has do with him. He put himself right in the mix. Although, realistically, everybody is responsible for their own choices in those other books. After all, they didn’t have to choose The Way of the Serpent. What if any guy who claims to be God is a snake? This could turn into a great biblical paradox. Duality killer possibly.Since it'll transfer nicely, and maintain on topic for the most part, you can razz me In The Center Of The Garden if you want...

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary