The First Questions In The Bible

No need for an apology jar. You are a classic example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance tactic misrepresentationalist, we all are at times. I've already forgiven you in my heart. Please clarify your position and provide biblical support for your assertion. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. This maybe why Elohim changed his mind about letting the lovebirds eat from thee Tree of Life...The ability to know good from evil says nothing about what actions people take.
By the way, if you have found an instance of moral sense or remorse please provide it accordingly. Chapter and verse. Please provide biblical support for your assertion or clarify your view...this is Bible study my friend. And your support for that is found where? They can experience right and wrong, but I do not see where they can tell the difference. In Bible Study, kindly stick to what the Bible says. Don't make it up as you go along. Chapter and verse please. You have to wonder about those who teach such things. This must be why the God of Genesis told them they could eat from it, huh. Or maybe Elohim's concern was... Immortality combined with the inability to differentiate good from evil due to relativity, and act appropriately on a consistent basis seems to be His reasoning for concern and restricted access to the Tree of Life. You disagree with this? Are you sure He wasn't concerned with them possessing immortality without being able adhere to the wisdom of Elohim when distinguishing between what's considered goodness and malevolency and making the right choice accordingly on a consistent basis??Immortality + inability to act appropriately = Elohim to be concerned...yes or no Am I misrepresenting you or did you say God leaves the Garden. Maybe you misrepresented your belief accidentally. It happens. If what you typed is what you meant, please provide an example of Elohim leaving the Garden. Chapter and verse.Edited by Bailey, : punct.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

We don't have to assume anything. It says quite plainly that they got the knowledge of good and evil from eating the fruit. They knew snakes could talk because the snake talked to them. It has nothing to do with what you believe. In the story, the snake can talk and the fruit is magic. Period. (Of course, there is no "devil" in the story at all.)If you don't believe those things are literally true, then you understand that the story is just a story. But you can't change the whole story around to suit yourself just because it isn't literally true. But it was embedded magically, as the story plainly says: They ate the fruit, they got the knowledge. I quoted the verses for you. There was no time delay between eating the fruit and obtaining the knowledge, no time for "life experience".I asked you to quote scripture to back up your notion that there was a "process" in learning the difference between good and evil, that Adam and Eve had "life experience" and not a magical impartation. I didn't ask for every verse you could find about good and evil.The topic is about the questions asked in the first few chapters of Genesis. You and I have been discussing whether or not Adam and Eve were right to question God, whether or not that was His intention.The question of what "is" good or evil is not relevant. The question we're discussing is whether or not God wanted/expected Adam and Eve to choose the knowledge of good and evil.

---

“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

Bailey, I have attempted to support my position. The audience can read the thread and decide whether or not I have supported my position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It’s evident I am mildly retarded from time to time. I don't want anyone to take it personally. I slay myself. It’s all in fun. I truly appreciate you and jar because you cause me to reconsider things. That’s why I love yoos. Thank you.Two trees named and one tree always blamed. All the tree did was grow as it was created to. It had no freewill. Elohim’s concern seems not for Himself alone, but for everyone involved. Adam and Eve were told they would surely die. In Elohim’s wisdom of goodness, was it because He too knew it killed inside to have your son murdered in innocence. He may have foreseen the frustration and heartache the lovebirds would experience losing a child. Abel stood upright in the eyes of God. Was Elohim trying to spare them the agony of injustice?It was curious why Elohim sent them from the Garden keeping them from the Tree of Life. Was it because He was nervous they would become even more like Gods, encroaching His territory . but we were created like Gods? In Genesis, knowing good and evil causes Elohim to do good. But as jar said, for mankind, the ability to know good from evil does not mean that someone will choose good over evil.Elohim’s advice was preventing jealous murders, and the likes, from living forever. Their legacy is advantageous for no one. Elohim knew this would happen. That’s why He advised against that magical fruit from the beginning. It’s clear now, from the text, God attempted to save them from themselves for their own good. Elohim does not want for anyone who cannot or will not choose good over evil to live forever causing distress for His creation.I used to think the Tree of Knowledge led the lovebirds to know the difference between good and evil. Now that we've dissected these verses it is conclusive to me that they just became aware of the concept of the two, not aware of the difference between them. There is no evidence they could tell what was good from bad. Nevertheless, now they would be aware of life. Experience shame, suffering, bitterness, loss. Learn peace, honor, respect love. All of the while, hopefully, learning the wisdom of good from evil.They realized things would never be the same as those days of innocence lost in the Garden. The environment was familiar, but their hearts were different. They’re eyes were opened and the world as they knew it was changed forever. Maybe they realized freewill would have consequence. When they left that Garden their journey began. Like them we still encounter this struggle to differentiate right from wrong because the terms are relative. This relativity causes injustice. Elohim is aware of this . at all times.He knew they would do as they pleased because they did not yet understand consequence. Elohim’s awareness and love for goodness caused Him to advise them. His wisdom of goodness displayed in the creation. All He made was good and with His wisdom of goodness Adam and Eve were created with authority and choices. Freewill to create their own destiny or their own dynasty. Without a conscience, they could not know God. Without this awareness, they could not truly know God’s heart.Without wisdom they could not truly love God.p.s. I have no support for this

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

the punishments are all tied to it. for instance, adam must farm because food is no longer provided for him. whether or not it's a "punishment" per se, the net effect of it certainly is a bad one, imposed by god.and either way, god could have moved the tree, not man. so i say, it's a punishment. sure it does.why do people die? physical death, almost certainly. there is no biblical basis for "spiritual death."

---

Bailey writes:

quote:

---

It was curious why Elohim sent them from the Garden keeping them from the Tree of Life.

---

No, it wasn't. The Bible directly says why:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:God panics because Adam and Eve are one step away from being just like him.

quote:

---

In Genesis, knowing good and evil causes Elohim to do good.

---

No, not quite. God recognizes that he made a mistake in killing everything on earth, apologizes, and swears that he will never do it again. Abraham rebukes god and calms him down lest he perform another rash act.And in Exodus, god is continually rebuked by Moses, once again calming him down and stopping him from going off half-cocked and doing something stupid.You're absolutely right that just because you know good and evil doesn't mean you always do good. Not even god always does good. In fact, as the Bible directly states, god is the source of everything, good [i][b]and[/i][/b] evil.

quote:

---

It’s clear now, from the text, God attempted to save them from themselves for their own good.

---

Then why on earth did he put them in the garden with the Tree of Knowledge? If you don't want your kid knocking over the delicate vase, don't leave him alone in the room with it.

quote:

---

I used to think the Tree of Knowledge led the lovebirds to know the difference between good and evil.

---

As well you should as that's what the text directly and specifically says:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, [I][B]Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:[/i][/b] and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

quote:

---

There is no evidence they could tell what was good from bad.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the very first thing they do indicates that they knew good from bad.What was the very first thing they panic over after eating from the tree? You'd think it would have been having eaten from the tree since that was the only thing they were told not to do. And yet, something else presses itself upon them so forcefully that they run and hide. It's the same thing the Bible directly states just before the serpent comes along that they were not ashamed of.Clearly, they did understand the difference between the two because they were immediately ashamed of something they had done wrong.

quote:

---

p.s. I have no support for this

---

You're not kidding. The very text of the Bible directly contradicts you.

---

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.

arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

why do people die?

---

Because they do. Everything dies. Adam and Eve were going to die even if they never ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Remember, the punishment of Eve is that her childbirth pain will "increase," not that she will suddenly become fertile and start having children. That means that the cycle of life was already in place.

---

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.

i'm sorry, you misunderstood. i wasn't actually asking, actually, it wasn't even rhetorical. i was trying to say that this is (one of) the reason(s) the story was written. yes and no -- they weren't going to die if they had access to the tree of life. it might even require continuous access; hard to tell from the text. it is only the tree that would keep them alive (that's what it's for), and banishment from the garden prevents them from eating from that tree: condemning them to death. actually, that sounds like a translation issue. the hebrew word used for "alot" can sometimes be rendered "more." i'll check that when i get home. my computer at work can't render the vowels properly in the onlin hebrew bibles, making them a pain to read. not neccessarily. "knowledge" is also a biblical euphemism for sex. no sex, no life-cycle.

Classic example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance tactic of misrepresentation Rrhain.
In Genesis 2:16 Elohim feared for His life too . not. The tree of Life is regarded as the tree of Wisdom . (*note...eat your magic fruit and learn the difference between wisdom and knowledge)
As long as they didn”t turn into jealous, murderous, adulterous first, they were free to eat from this tree all along They had God’s blessing to gain wisdom and immortality instead of knowledge and a death sentence. Elohim’s concern didn’t have anything to do with the fact they would start murdering each other eight verses after they left the Garden, I’m sure of it.
It couldn’t have had anything to do with the fact if they ate from that Tree too Cain probably would have murdered you and your family last night if you said a cooler prayer than him. That would be a speculation that's within the parameters of the story.
Pull yur head oucher butt.
Even if they had the ability to distinguish between relative good and bad, which is supported no where in Judaic Scripture, are you sure Elohim wasn't concerned with them possessing immortality without the desire and ability to make the right choice accordingly based on benevolence as opposed to malevolence? Hold on . Ohhh, you got me again . not Just to prove people don’t listen for $h!t. You are making a huge assumption something was differentiated between good and evil after the fruit of knowledge incident and making a huge assumption that Adam or Eve actually learned anything. This just isn't supported from the text of Genesis. There is a huge difference between having knowledge of two things and being able to differentiate two things. Here the definition in case you want to be privy. I suppose you think they magically gained some moral sense or the ability to feel remorse too? I”d love to see that . Chapter and verse.
Main Entry: 1dif·fer·ence
Pronunciation: 'di-f&rn(t)s, 'di-f(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the quality of being different . difference between good and evil
2 : a characteristic that distinguishes one from another or from the average
3 : the element or factor that separates or distinguishes contrasting situations
The term knowledge itself is connotative of needing the fact or condition of something with familiarity to be gained through experience or association.
When you assume you make an ass of u and me. Empty speculation. What does Adam and Eve being ashamed of their private bits, making aprons to protect their bits from shrubbery, and wanting privacy because they're naked have to do with the ability to know good from evil? I prefer clothing; how does that relate to my ability to know good from evil?Please . show me any where in the Bible where it declares the ability to know good from evil is established by the desire for privacy or making aprons. I have not seen this in Scripture. Awareness of nudity or your own consciousness has nothing to do with good or evil. Yet gee, it wasn’t. Kinda makes you think...Kinda makes you think didn’t have the time or experience to learn anything, much less the relativity of good and evil. Please show me any where in the Bible where it is stated that the awareness of consciousness magically awards you the wisdom of the difference between good and evil. The tree obviously indicates exactly what it’s named . the knowledge of good and evil. Not to be mistaken with the magical fruit from the Tree of the Difference Between the Knowledge of Good and Evil.Who cares what the tree’s named anyway. As far as the text delivers it may as well have been named the Tree of the Knowledge of Realization for the Need of Clothing to Protect Your Private Bits, or the Tree of the Hide, Were Naked. Please, stop the Olympic-caliber long-jumping and think before you post. That’s the standard dogma, but it makes absolutely no sense. If anything, their awareness of nudity displayed the first time they were conscious of themselves period. Nothing good, nothing evil.Adam and Eve didn’t eat from the Tree of the Wisdom (ability to discern) of Good and Evil . they ate from the tree of Knowledge (the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association) of Good and Evil. It’s safe to conclude they learned the difference between relative “goodness” and “evilness”, not by your “magical fruit” as you suppose but through the cause and effect of life experiences like the definition of the word implies . like everybody else in the world. Study, study, study and kindly stick to what the Good Book says. Don't make it up as you go along. I love you bro, you’re a hoot.
This is the Bible Study section. A quick sleight of hand probably isn’t going to fool as many people as you hope. You are of course free to make up any fairytales you want.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Well, Mr. Bailey! I am impressed with your command of using differing font sizes, italics and elaborations upon Biblical texts to make your point to our distinguished veteran, Mr. Rrhain.I am not so impressed with your overall attitude of spunk and youthful arrogance, as you are verbally jousting at best and not actually refuting anything presented.Perhaps what you need is a Great Debate Topic to vent your enthusiasm....a place where you can extrapolate and create wondrous posts unhindered! Perhaps you have a topic along the lines of spirituality that you would be willing to discuss with me? If so, propose a Great Debate and I shall have a go at it with you....if you are serious about not only expressing your beliefs but allowing me to do likewise, unhindered.In the meantime, I am officially warning you that you have danced around some of the basic Forum Guidelines and this notice serves as a mild rebuke!

---

Thank you for your encouragements and my apologies across the board for the astute,
yet innocuous attempts at humor. I’m my own best fan, as we all are to ourselves.
I’d by a ticket to see me live. Then again, I’d by a ticket to see jar live too. This thread has been enlightening to me. It was an honor to engage with the consummate Rrhain.
Although, some of the water from that well became redundant and dubious, to say the least.
His fault by no means . he enlisted towards the likely unachievable consummation of some of the
debate points paraded by some of the classic Denomination Of Arrogance tactics.
They may well of rubbed off to an extent. There’s some sharks in here, and I mean that
in the most commendable way. My overall arrangement of the topic has become quite acquiescent towards
some new perspective. Many of these points were pulped early on between the admirable
Ringo and myself. Hi Ringo I had a great time in this thread and truly hope nobody is overly offended or inordinate.
I’d hate to wear out my welcome amongst some of the most contemporary and fashionable
interpretations without percolating and digesting all the scenarios and characters aboard...first. I’ve never accessed chat, but I think my computer will support it fine. I’ve been meaning to get
at you since last Monday, then the forum was down. Between work and dancing with the stars in a
couple different threads, it hasn’t come to pass . and now here you are. I’d say unfortunately under
these circumstances, but the end justifies the means for me. See where the Spirit leads you,
present some topics to dissect, then we’ll choose one and have a go as you say. I’d love to fathom
your doctrine and encounter your spirit as I”ve been so fortunate to do with some of the other
veterans aboard the EVC . although I don’t know as you’ll provide me with the challenge that the DOA has.
Which is fine by me. Variety is the spice of life. A break from ’logic” and “reason” wouldn’t kill anybody from time to time...Be good.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

come to chat, if you are able...I'll be up for ten minutes

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

not neccessarily. "knowledge" is also a biblical euphemism for sex. no sex, no life-cycle.

---

Yes, necessarily. The only place the tree is called the "tree of knowledge" is Genesis 2:17 and the word used is from the root "da`ath," not "yada."And while "yada" can mean sex, it must be phrased in a specific way in order to do so. "Knowledge of good and evil" is not the correct phrasing and thus, it cannot mean "knowledge of sex."It is this same error that leads people to think that when the people of Sodom order Lot to bring out the men "so that we may know them," they're talking about having sex. The phrasing isn't appropriate for an indication of sex and when Lot does offer them sex as a distraction, they immediately rebuke him.We cannot force a misunderstood English pun onto Hebrew.

---

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.

Bailey responds to me:

quote:

---

The tree of Life is regarded as the tree of Wisdom

---

No, it isn't. The Tree of Knowledge is the the Tree of Wisdom. That's why it's called the Tree of "Knowledge." The root word is "da'ath," meaning "knowledge," "perception," "skill," "discernment," "understanding," "wisdom."Your quote from Proverbs isn't referencing Genesis.

quote:

---

As long as they didn”t turn into jealous, murderous, adulterous first, they were free to eat from this tree all along

---

That's not what the Bible says:Genesis 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.I fail to see how "thou shalt not eat of it" is interpreted to mean, "go ahead and eat of it."By the way..."adulterous"? They were the only two people in existence. Who on earth, literally, is there to commit adultery with?

quote:

---

Even if they had the ability to distinguish between relative good and bad, which is supported no where in Judaic Scripture

---

Nice try, but that's my argument: Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree. Therefore, it is impossible to declare their eating from the tree to be a "sin." Sin requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.They were sinning up a storm long before the serpent entered the picture and yet, nobody bats an eye. Why? Because they were innocent (not stupid) and thus, their actions could not be considered "sin." So what's so special about this act that innocence isn't good enough?

quote:

---

are you sure Elohim wasn't concerned with them possessing immortality without the desire and ability to make the right choice accordingly based on benevolence as opposed to malevolence?

---

Huh? They just managed to get that ability, having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. So why does god panic over them eating from the Tree of Life? If your interpretation is true, nothing in the story makes sense. Why would god tell them not to do something he wants them to do? When they do it, why would he punish them rather than allowing them to take the next step he wants them to take?

quote:

---

You are making a huge assumption something was differentiated between good and evil after the fruit of knowledge incident

---

As well I should since the text directly says so:Genesis 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
3:7: And the eyes of them both were openedSo since the text directly says that something was differentiated, why should we interpret that to mean something other than just that?Remember, god backs up the assertion:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

quote:

---

There is a huge difference between having knowledge of two things and being able to differentiate two things.

---

Precisely. That's my point: Adam and Eve were told, "Don't touch!" but they didn't understand what that meant. In order to do that, you need to have knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve don't have that since they haven't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, the very first thing they do indicates that they knew good from bad.

---

​

Empty speculation.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Have you not read Genesis 3:7? There's a reason I'm not quoting that particular verse specifically, but it directly contradicts you.

quote:

---

What does Adam and Eve being ashamed of their private bits, making aprons to protect their bits from shrubbery, and wanting privacy because they're naked have to do with the ability to know good from evil?

---

Because it is wrong to be naked. After all, a previous verse points out that they should have been ashamed but were not.

quote:

---

Who cares what the tree’s named anyway.

---

Because it is what helps us distinguish it from other trees. If you're going to let it be an Anything Tree, its functions and powers being whatever you want it to be at the time, neither more nor less, then there's no point in continuing.

quote:

---

Study, study, study and kindly stick to what the Good Book says.

---

Indeed.Why is it that when discussing what the text of Genesis 3 says, I've been the only one quoting it?

---

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.

דעת (dat) is the noun form of ידע (yada). the "root" is dalet-(vav)-ayin. another reason why concordances are often misleading and do not substitute for understanding the grammar. no, "sex" would replace "knowledge." so, "sex for good and bad purposes." clearly, it can be used both ways. "be fruitful and multiply" vs raping outsiders. no, the mistake there is that "men" (in both "men of the city" and "men that cam to you last night") does not actually specify a gender, because in hebrew grammar a group of men and women takes the masculine gender. or if you don't know the contents of a group, they're male by default. we actually used to do this in english. also, the nouns used are ones that mean something more like "person" and not "man" in the male sense. it's not about homosexuality, it's about inhospitality.however, it is also most certainly is about sex, at least one some level. lot offers them his two daughter, and even goes to the extent to lie about them being virgins. why do that if it wasn't sex they wanted? why would he beg them not to be so wicked, if they just wanted a meet and greet? why would they threaten lot, saying that they would do worse to him than they wanted to do to the visitors? sodom is destroyed because of its treatment of visitors, yes. part of that mistreatment is apparently raping them. it's really, really odd that you would read "i have two virgin daughters" as an invitation to sex, but not a well known euphemism. and the phrasing IS appropriate, it just uses a different tense because it's what they intend to do. it says: on the contrary, the english "pun" comes directly from hebrew, via literal translations, especially the KJV. gen 2 is sort of subjective, because it obviously has another meaning as well, but gen 19 is very much about sex. the second half of the chapter is about incest. now, reading every instance of "know" as meanign sex would be wrong, but in some cases it's rather clear cut.

---