Who's booty you kissing?

What I meant when I said I believe God put it there to give Adam and Eve a choice is... gosh I hope this doesn't come out sounding pathetic... that love gives a choice. It does not force itself upon anyone. It does not manipulate to maintain itself. If Adam and Eve were to truly love God they had to be given a choice to do so. Because love is not love if there is no choice. So the tree was there to give them the choice to love Him and obey Him, or to love themselves and what they wanted more than Him.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

What I meant when I said I believe God put it there to give Adam and Eve a choice is... gosh I hope this doesn't come out sounding pathetic... that love gives a choice. It does not force itself upon anyone. It does not manipulate to maintain itself. If Adam and Eve were to truly love God they had to be given a choice to do so. Because love is not love if there is no choice. So the tree was there to give them the choice to love Him and obey Him, or to love themselves and what they wanted more than Him.

First of all...it does not sound pathetic...and I thank you for taking the time to expand on your remarks.

That being said, however, (and nothing that follows is meant to be an insult or an attack) it does sound a bit contrived...almost as though you are saying that your god put the tree there as a temptation...but since you have disagreed with me on that, you are using the word "choice" to essentially convey the same intention.

But let me get past that...and use your take on the matter. Let us suppose the god meant the tree to be there in order to give Adam and Eve a chance to make "a choice"...whether to obey the god...or disobey...

...whether, as you put it, to love the god...or to love themselves more.

If that were the case don't you think the god put those two naive, innocent people to a test without letting them in on the rules????

They DID NOT KNOW right from wrong. They did not know that "obeying the god"...was "good" or "right" and that "disobeying the god" was "wrong" or "evil."

That information had purposefully been withheld from them by the god.

In fact, "disobeying" was the only way they could ever find out that there was anything wrong with disobeying.

There was no choice...or at least, no meaningful choice.

Really! Think about this for a bit. Mull it over.

I'm not asking you to buy into my "it was there to tempt them" scenario...but I am asking you to reconsider the logic of what you are offering as an alternative.

Come back at me on this.

0 Replies

I'm so grateful for this conversation right now. It is teaching me to be more clear in how I speak. As well as how I think or perceive things.

Ok, let me clarify my thoughts here.

First and foremost Frank thank you for not attacking me personally. You have earned my trust in this conversation that you will remain level headed and not involve personal comments in this. That means a lot to me right now.

Quote:

That being said, however, (and nothing that follows is meant to be an insult or an attack) it does sound a bit contrived...almost as though you are saying that your god put the tree there as a temptation...but since you have disagreed with me on that, you are using the word "choice" to essentially convey the same intention.

Ok, you are right Frank. So right. I am sorry for not being clearer on this sooner. I actually thought I didn't believe what you believe, but I do, well... sorta. I am saying the same thing but from a different perspective. My perspective is not that God's intent was to withhold something good from them, which so far is how I am understanding what you are saying. It is that the tree was there to provide an option to them. As a test if you will. Which is also in the definition of tempt as we saw earlier.

Quote:

But let me get past that...and use your take on the matter. Let us suppose the god meant the tree to be there in order to give Adam and Eve a chance to make "a choice"...whether to obey the god...or disobey...

...whether, as you put it, to love the god...or to love themselves more.

If that were the case don't you think the god put those two naive, innocent people to a test without letting them in on the rules????

He did let them in on the rules. He said if you do this you will die. The rules were: do and die or don't do and live. Let me ask you this. Would you sit down with a five year old child and explain to them all the reasons why you don't want them to touch the hot stove? Of all the consequences that would follow touching the hot stove, and so forth? Or would you just say don't touch that it will burn you. I would tell them what they could comprehend. Everything else would be just a waste of words. I believe it all boils down to comprehension.

Quote:

They DID NOT KNOW right from wrong. They did not know that "obeying the god"...was "good" or "right" and that "disobeying the god" was "wrong" or "evil."

That information had purposefully been withheld from them by the god.

Once again I don't believe God withheld anything from them with ill intent.

Quote:

In fact, "disobeying" was the only way they could ever find out that there was anything wrong with disobeying.

There was no choice...or at least, no meaningful choice.

Really! Think about this for a bit. Mull it over.

I'm not asking you to buy into my "it was there to tempt them" scenario...but I am asking you to reconsider the logic of what you are offering as an alternative.

Come back at me on this.

That's not true. God told them if they disobeyed Him they would die. Therefore they knew, had enough comprehension to understand, there would be a consequence for disobeying Him, even though they had never experienced a consequence. There was choice Frank otherwise they wouldn't have disobeyed Him. If He hadn't said "don't do this" and they did it, then there wouldn't have been a choice, because there were no other options given. So to have given them a consequence for doing something they weren't told they shouldn't do would not have been fair. But to give them a consequence for doing something they were told not to do is fair. They were told, don't do this or you will die. Therefore they were given a choice.

0 Replies

just curious, did adam & eve know what "to die" meant?

0 Replies

Good question Dys. Good question indeed. Sure. To know what something is and to have experienced it are two totally separate things.

0 Replies

ok then, so I have to ask, we have death as the result of sin but what was the sin? Is knowledge sin?
Actually I've always understood that death is the result of bi-sexual reproduction, so is what we are talking about here in the eden story really about knowledge of sexual reproduction? did your god give mankind sexuality and then condemn mankind to "death" for becoming knowledgeable about it? weird ain't it?

0 Replies

I have to leave for work as soon as I'm done with this response, but I may be able to be back for a short while this evening. If not, I will be back for sure by 10:30 pm.

Dys, knowledge is not the "sin". They had knowledge before they ate of the tree. The "sin" was not even gaining the knowledge of good and evil, it was that they disobeyed God.

0 Replies

Hephzibah

You quoted me saying:

Quote:

But let me get past that...and use your take on the matter. Let us suppose the god meant the tree to be there in order to give Adam and Eve a chance to make "a choice"...whether to obey the god...or disobey...

...whether, as you put it, to love the god...or to love themselves more.

If that were the case don't you think the god put those two naive, innocent people to a test without letting them in on the rules????

...and then you responded:

Quote:

He did let them in on the rules. He said if you do this you will die. The rules were: do and die or don't do and live.

If you want that to be "the choice"...they could chose to die.

But you are talking about the problem being not that they would die, but that they had disobeyed your god.

They did not know that disobeying was wrong. They did not know anything was wrong or evil about anything.

If your god truly was just trying to give them the choice between continuing to live...and dying...surely they could chose "dying."

That is one of the two choices.

But I suspect that the folks who wrote this (what I consider an allegory)...were trying to make a statement about obedience to the god. And, Heph...Adam and Eve were not informed of the rules of good and bad, right and wrong,, virture and evil. That information...intrinsic to the story...was withheld from them.

Quote:

Let me ask you this. Would you sit down with a five year old child and explain to them all the reasons why you don't want them to touch the hot stove? Of all the consequences that would follow touching the hot stove, and so forth? Or would you just say don't touch that it will burn you. I would tell them what they could comprehend. Everything else would be just a waste of words. I believe it all boils down to comprehension.

What I would do...and I suspect you also...I would not put a five year old into a situation where a hot stove was available...with no supervision except for a deranged individual that is known to try to entice five year olds into touching hot stoves. If you are going to use your example...that is the proper way of looking at it.

The problem with the Eden story is: Why have the tree there in the first place...and why have a great tempter there also....especially knowing that the individuals were even less prepared to deal with this kind of thing than a five year old is to deal with a hot stove.

Quote:

Quote:
They DID NOT KNOW right from wrong. They did not know that "obeying the god"...was "good" or "right" and that "disobeying the god" was "wrong" or "evil."

That information had purposefully been withheld from them by the god.

Once again I don't believe God withheld anything from them with ill intent.

Ill-intent???

Well...once again, you have to work on this problem from the perspective of it being true...and from the perspective of thinking that your god would never do anything stupid or inappropriate.

I, on the other hand, am coming from the perspective of it being an allegory...and I can easily see it to be an allegory that has significant defects.

I can look at this thing...and have no problem seeing that if there is a GOD...a loving GOD...the best guess is that that GOD would never do something like this. This appears to be more the kind of thing that humans inventing a scenario for the creation of what they saw as the universe...and their intentions to show humankind as being in rebellion against the creator...simply screwed up.

The story is defective in the extreme, Heph.

Quote:

Quote:
In fact, "disobeying" was the only way they could ever find out that there was anything wrong with disobeying.

There was no choice...or at least, no meaningful choice.

Really! Think about this for a bit. Mull it over.

I'm not asking you to buy into my "it was there to tempt them" scenario...but I am asking you to reconsider the logic of what you are offering as an alternative.

Come back at me on this.

That's not true. God told them if they disobeyed Him they would die. Therefore they knew, had enough comprehension to understand, there would be a consequence for disobeying Him, even though they had never experienced a consequence.

Once again...supposing you are correct...that still boils down to "if you do this...this will happen"...and they can still choose to do it.

But since the story is insistent that they do not know good from evil and right from wrong....so what?

They are simply making a choice...per your take on things. One of the choices available. (Not the choice I would make...nor you, presumably...but one of the two choices offered.)

Quote:

There was choice Frank otherwise they wouldn't have disobeyed Him. If He hadn't said "don't do this" and they did it, then there wouldn't have been a choice, because there were no other options given. So to have given them a consequence for doing something they weren't told they shouldn't do would not have been fair. But to give them a consequence for doing something they were told not to do is fair. They were told, don't do this or you will die. Therefore they were given a choice.

I ask you to do what I asked earlier...to reconsider.

In this story...Adam and Eve are portrayed as not knowing the difference between good and bad...between right and wrong...

...and the god specifically tells them that they are not to gain that knowledge.

That is the unavoidable defect in this allegory.

They simply could not know there was anything wrong with disobeying unless they disobeyed...and then it would be too late.

As for consequences....the consequences do not impact on that fact of the story. And "the consequences" are a matter for discussion further down the pike.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

ok then, so I have to ask, we have death as the result of sin but what was the sin? Is knowledge sin?
Actually I've always understood that death is the result of bi-sexual reproduction, so is what we are talking about here in the eden story really about knowledge of sexual reproduction? did your god give mankind sexuality and then condemn mankind to "death" for becoming knowledgeable about it? weird ain't it?

That is just silly.

Ever-body knows that death is a direct result of breathing. It also results from not breathing. That God joker was just vicious . . . damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

0 Replies

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INTERMISSION>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's see, there doesn't seem to be very many people coming out of the theatre right this minute. Hmmmmm. Let's walk over to the doors and see if we can figure out what is happening, shall we? (Momma Angel does the come hither thing with her finger to the cameraman.)

Well, folks, it would seem that there is a bit of a problem here. At the end of the first act we had a few different takes on the performance of our stars and the film itself. Now, it seems everyone is just sitting there.

Let's see if we can go in and get a reaction from some of the audience. Sir? Sir? (Gently shaking gentleman's shoulder). "Hey buddy! Wake up! (oops, Momma Angel slicks back her hair and gives a silly me look to the camera.) Sir, you seem to have fallen asleep. May I ask why? First, tell us your name, please."

"Uh, (yawn) yes ma'am, but I'd rather not give my name if that's ok?"

"Sure that would be fine but I am extremely curious as to why you have fallen asleep in the middle of the second act?"

"Well ma'am, to be honest with you, at the beginning of the act it was quite interesting and the performances by Frank and Hephzibah were stellar. But it seems that, well, the dialog kind of sounds like a broken record to me. I have seen Frank in other films and this performance could have well, just been cut and pasted from that one."

"Well, I understand your point sir but we must remember that Hephzibah is a new starlet to the silver screen and doesn't have the history of this type of film with WA2K-F that Frank does. I see it actually as Frank being patient and, even though he has played this role many times before, he is playing it now with a different facet to the character."

"Well, uh, yes, ma'am. I can certainly see that point. Uh, do you know if they have coffee in the lobby? (Walks off shaking his shoulders trying to wake up)"

Well, it seems there may be more than one perspective here folks. What is yours? We'd love to hear from you during intermission! What is your particular critique of the film?

Please enjoy these funny video clips during our intermission. Our posting lines are now open.

http://www.funs.co.uk/clips/

0 Replies

Quote:

If you want that to be "the choice"...they could chose to die.

But you are talking about the problem being not that they would die, but that they had disobeyed your god.

They did not know that disobeying was wrong. They did not know anything was wrong or evil about anything.

If your god truly was just trying to give them the choice between continuing to live...and dying...surely they could chose "dying."

That is one of the two choices.

But I suspect that the folks who wrote this (what I consider an allegory)...were trying to make a statement about obedience to the god. And, Heph...Adam and Eve were not informed of the rules of good and bad, right and wrong,, virture and evil. That information...intrinsic to the story...was withheld from them.

They knew it was wrong because God told them it was. He said "Of this tree you shall not eat. In the day you eat of it you shall die." They did choose to die. Truth be known Frank there's really no way for either of us to say what they did and didn't know completely. If the bible is in fact true I am sure there was more to the story than just what was written. There's really no way to tell though. However, that aside, just saying that's it, that's all there is to the story since that's all WE know about just hear me out on my perspective please.

Though made as adults there intellect was that of a child, which is why I used the child example. Imagine being locked in your basement by your parents for the first 30 years of your life. All you've ever seen is four walls, the little sun that comes in through a small window, and a dim light in the corner at night. All you were given to eat were the bare essentials to survive. Then one day the door at the top of the stairs opens and they say, "You are free. Please leave." So you walk out the door. How will you take care of yourself? How will you know what's right and wrong. How will you know anything? Can you imagine the wonder and awe that would come from seeing everything for the first time?

I imagine this is quite possibly how it felt for Adam and Eve. They were there as adults having experienced very little of what their world had to offer. Every day brought new experiences, new things to see, touch, smell, taste. Life was an experience in and of itself. They didn't need to know the rules of good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and evil. Those are things their world did not contain because there was no sin. The world was theirs for the taking. Anything they wanted pretty much. Except for one thing. A tree that had fruit which would give them the knowledge of good and evil. A knowledge they did not need.

There was no murder. There was no hate. There was no adultery. There was no bias. There was no drugs or alcohol even. Or anything else people consider "evil". None of that existed so how could He tell them about it? Why should he tell them about it? There were only two things out there that could pose a threat, for a lack of better words to use. The tree and the one who had been cast from heaven for wanting to be greater than God. Only two things.

Quote:

What I would do...and I suspect you also...I would not put a five year old into a situation where a hot stove was available...with no supervision except for a deranged individual that is known to try to entice five year olds into touching hot stoves. If you are going to use your example...that is the proper way of looking at it.

The problem with the Eden story is: Why have the tree there in the first place...and why have a great tempter there also....especially knowing that the individuals were even less prepared to deal with this kind of thing than a five year old is to deal with a hot stove.

Frank, that could have been a poor example to use on my part however let me insert this. It happens every day. I guarantee it. Stay at home mom with three kids, Dad is a work, Katie's (13) in her room, john (11) is playing video games, and little tommy's (5) in the kitchen with mom cooking dinner. He's playing with toys on the floor, mom has hot water boiling on the stove. Katie comes down stairs and starts screaming at john to turn off his game so she can watch tv. Mom yells, "enough!". He starts screaming back, things start crashing, Katie is crying, and mom walks out of the kitchen for just a minute to see what is going on. On the way out she say's "Tommy stay right there. Don't touch the stove." In less than a minute tommy, who was very contentedly playing with his toys, is at the stove pulling the pan of boiling water on himself.

You don't have to entice a five year old to touch a stove. They are curious little creatures. Curiosity alone can entice them to do that, even when they are told not to. I would still like to know though, would you explain to him all the ins and outs of touching the stove? Or would you tell him "Don't touch it, it will burn you."? Once again Frank, true love involves a choice. Love is not love unless the person choses to do it. If you had/have kids would you want them to love you purely out of obligation? Just because you are their father? Or because they wanted to love you? Would you want them to do things because they felt they had to because you wanted them to? Or because they wanted to do it, knowing it would make you happy? Adam and Eve were not God's puppets on a string. That is not what they were created to be.

Sorry that's all I have time for right now. I'll be back in a little while.

0 Replies

Ladies and gentlemen! Wow! Everyone is rushing from the threatre grabbing at popcorn and getting refreshments! There are lines at the facilities! Let's see what's going on!

"Ma'am, ma'am, can you tell us what has just happened, please."

"Yes, yes! Stellar performance. Hephzibah just had the most riveting scene. It was like, well, it was like you were actually there! She connected with the audience! She played her part with compassion and grace. Awesome! Just awesome! Ok, I gotta get back in there! I can't wait to see Frank's performance! These two are wonderful together. Their personalities and knowledge meld so well! Hey! That's my seat! Excuse me, lady. I gotta go!"

"Well, there you have it folks. Seems the show is starting to get really interesting now. Let's all go take our seats and wait for Frank's upcoming scene."

"Pass me some of that popcorn will you, Joe Sixpack? Nah, just a soda pop for now! Thanx!"

"Ssssssssssshhhhh, it's starting."

0 Replies

Quote:

Ill-intent???

Well...once again, you have to work on this problem from the perspective of it being true...and from the perspective of thinking that your god would never do anything stupid or inappropriate.

I, on the other hand, am coming from the perspective of it being an allegory...and I can easily see it to be an allegory that has significant defects.

I can look at this thing...and have no problem seeing that if there is a GOD...a loving GOD...the best guess is that that GOD would never do something like this. This appears to be more the kind of thing that humans inventing a scenario for the creation of what they saw as the universe...and their intentions to show humankind as being in rebellion against the creator...simply screwed up.

The story is defective in the extreme, Heph.

Of course it is to you Frank. If you believe this is an allegory how could you possibly see it any other way? (no sarcasm intended) Anything can look either defective or right. It all depends on one's perspective. My perception of men right now is that they are all a bunch of friggin jerks who will do or say whatever it takes to get what they want. Regardless of the cost. (concerning relationships that is. No offence intended here) Does that mean all men are actually like that? Nope. The practical side of me knows that there are some good ones out there... somewhere... Does knowing that change my situation? Nope.

However IF I were to chose to just look at it as my situation is further proof of my current perspective on men I will end up an angry, bitter, old woman some day because I will remain in the perspective that all men are friggin jerks and can't be trusted. That kind of thinking leads to a very lonely life. I don't want to be lonely, or angry, or bitter, well... or old for that matter. That's the beautiful thing about having a brain. We can actually use it if we want. Some do. Some don't. We are free to live as we choose to believe. If what you believe truly makes you happy, more power to you Frank. What I believe gives me hope, joy, peace, and contentment in my life, even when things aren't going so great. That makes me happy.

I would like to ask you though, what exactly do YOU think a loving God would do Frank? I'm sincerely curious here.

Quote:

I ask you to do what I asked earlier...to reconsider.

In this story...Adam and Eve are portrayed as not knowing the difference between good and bad...between right and wrong...

...and the god specifically tells them that they are not to gain that knowledge.

That is the unavoidable defect in this allegory.

They simply could not know there was anything wrong with disobeying unless they disobeyed...and then it would be too late.

As for consequences....the consequences do not impact on that fact of the story. And "the consequences" are a matter for discussion further down the pike.

We're right back to the word for word thing again. God did not specifically tell them that they are not to gain that knowledge. He said not to eat of the tree. You make it sound like He specifically said to them at some point, "You MUST not gain the knowledge of good and evil! Muuuuwaaahahaha." (evil laugh added for emphasis)

What exactly are you asking me to reconsider here Frank? I guess I'm not really clear on that. My position on what I believe as a whole? My position on what I believe about the tree? Adam and Eve?

0 Replies

Heph...

...let's go to your analogy...of the little 5 year old.

A significant difference is...the stove HAS TO BE THERE. A house HAS TO HAVE a stove so that cooking can be done.

My point right along is that the tree DID NOT HAVE TO BE THERE.

The woman is distracted...the kid touches the stove or grabs the pot of water...and disaster occurs.

But that is not the scenario presented in the Eden story.

The story in Eden has two people who ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL...it is intricate to the story. (Caps for emphasis...not shouting!)

They did not know there was a difference between obeying and disobeying. That is ESSENTIAL to the story. If they did...there would be no reason to stop them from gaining that knowledge.

The tree is there unnecessarily. It doesn't have to be there EXCEPT TO TEMPT THEM.

And the god is not distracted...the god simply allows them to be alone with the temptation. That would be like the woman purposefully putting the kid in the kitchen with a hot stove...and then going to the corner pub for a beer.

And you noted that the kid did not have to be tempted to touch the stove...or the pot. TRUE! But in the Eden story...not only did they not have to be tempted to eat of the fruit...THEY WERE TEMPTED...and by the greatest tempter of all eternity.

That is the point (of what I see as) the allegory. They (humanity) is going to be tempted...and they are going to succumb to temptation. Any reasonable guess would be that that was the intention of the people who wrote the allegory. To show mankind falling...because they perceived mankind as fallen people.

They just did a really poor job with the allegory...and unlike you, they are not here to try to clean up loose ends by changing parts of the allegory when the defects are noted.

In any case, I suspect that was is in play here is occasioned by something you wrote early on. You said:

Quote:

This God that you describe as jealous, quick tempered, slow to forgive, unreasonable in expectations, duplicitous, vengeful, retributive, mean-spirited, revenge driven, unnecessarily tyrannical, incredibly petty, murderous, and barbaric, had a purpose for everything that happened. Everything that was done. Everything that was said. If you would like to show me specific examples of God behaving this way I would be happy to look at it with you. I think it might make things a little easier to understand if we actually look at these references you are talking about.

It appears you have already decided that EVERYTHING the god does is justified...no matter that you cannot think of a justification. (I understand that, I am not faulting you...I am merely calling it to the attention of the discussion)

You asked:

Quote:

I would like to ask you though, what exactly do YOU think a loving God would do Frank? I'm sincerely curious here.

In general, I think a loving GOD would simply butt out. OF EVERYTHING. Just simply butt the hell out. Give us (humanity) this gift...and let us do with it what we will. Not make any judgements...not make any demands...just butt out.

I often cite the only prayer I think any theist ought ever to pray:

Dear God...please find something to do in some other galaxy...and leave us alone.

I often cite the only prayer I think any non-theist ought ever to pray:

Dear God...please protect me from your followers.

We'll leave the question of why the tree was there for now. I'd like to move on to the question of "who was closer to telling the truth, the god or the serpent."

If there are any outstanding question...from you, Heph, or from anyone else on the question of "why was the tree there"...let's deal with them...and then I'll post my first post on the new issue.

(Sorry about the shyt you are going through in your life right now, Heph. I went through much the same thing earlier in my life...and although there was no possible way I could understand it at that time, my world...my life...was made infinitely better by the experience and the lessons learned.)

0 Replies

Quote:

I often cite the only prayer I think any non-theist ought ever to pray:

Dear God...please protect me from your followers.

This is a prayer that has crossed my lips more than once. Except I add a couple of other words in there:

Dear God... please protect me and the rest of the world from your "followers".

Quote:

They just did a really poor job with the allegory...and unlike you, they are not here to try to clean up loose ends by changing parts of the allegory when the defects are noted.

Ok, I'm ready to move on as well. However I need to ask one question first. What have I changed? I am merely offering my opinion as to another possible reason things were they way they were.

Thank you for your kind words and understanding.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Quote:
They just did a really poor job with the allegory...and unlike you, they are not here to try to clean up loose ends by changing parts of the allegory when the defects are noted.

Ok, I'm ready to move on as well. However I need to ask one question first. What have I changed? I am merely offering my opinion as to another possible reason things were they way they were.

I was commenting on the fact that you noticed defects in your analogy (the one about the 5 year old and the stove) and you corrected or revised them in the corrected analogy. You are here...and you can notice some defects or loose ends in your analogy...and correct them.

The people who (as I see it) wrote the allegory of Adam and Eve and Eden don't have that luxury. They, for want of a better word, are stuck with it.

It is worth noting, however, that many, many other defects in the biblical script have, in effect, been changed by the people who are custodian of those books...the Jews. Their scholars have been changing (they call it "interpreting") many, many things in the first five books.

In any case, we'll go on to the next item. If anyone else has questions for me on my take about "why is the tree there"...please lemme at 'em.

0 Replies

Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that you are willing to see it. I'm ready when ever you are to discuss the next question.

0 Replies

The next item on my agenda is: Who was closer to telling the truth to Adam and Eve...the god...or the serpent?

And I guess I should start by getting this out of the way: Most people consider the serpent to be Satan. I will make that assumption in my remarks...but if you feel it is inappropriate, please disregard that notion. My comments work whether we have a talking serpent or a fallen angel disguised as a serpent.

At Genesis 2:17, the god tells Adam and Eve:

Jewish Bible: "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Protestent Bible: "...for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Catholic Bible (modern language): "...the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

At Genesis 3:4, the serpent tells Eve:

Jewish Bible: "...Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Protestent Bible: "...Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Catholic Bible (modern language): "...You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."

They ate of the fruit.

They did not die.

Their "eyes were opened" and they knew what was "good" and what was "evil."

They became like gods.

The god of the Bible acknowledges this last point, in a passage at Genesis 3:23 that raises other questions.

Jewish Bible: "...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 forever..."

Protestent Bible: "...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 forever."

Catholic Bible (modern language): "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."

So...as I see it, the answer to my question: "Who was closer to telling the truth to Adam and Eve...the god...or the serpent?"...is...the serpent.

Satan was truthful with Adam and Eve...the god of the Bible was less than truthful.

0 Replies

Momma A and Jason, thanks for the comments in reply to my question, they were interesting. The relationship people have with God is the most fascinating type of relationship to think about in many ways. This is a good discussion between Hephzibah and Frank though so I'll leave it at that and enjoy the show. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . .

My point right along is that the tree DID NOT HAVE TO BE THERE. . . .

Wrong. The tree represented mankind's acceptance or rejection of God's sovereignty according to free will.

If the choice had not been there, we would be automatons.

But, that is how some would have it.

0 Replies

Who's booty you kissing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know