The story of Adam and Eve - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The story of Adam and Eve
in Religion

By PoguePogue 519 Pts edited April 14
This debate is not about if it happened. 

It is about if it was justified for God to punish them and if the serpent lied. I will post my argument shortly. 

Edit: But you can try and debunk the story afterwards.
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    I was just going through my Bible and I came across this so I made a debate about it. 

    It wss wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    The snake was not lying. God said they would die the same day. Genesis 2:16-18. If they did not know the difference, they would need a deterrent. 

    I will also like to point out that God said "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (qoute from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. This means they would not live forever anyway so the serpent/snake (which was not mentioned to be Satan from my knowledge) was telling the truth (sort of).
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 14
    The tree is in the North Pole and is key to the nirvana of the flat Earth. It's no longer a tree, the stump turned black.
    Pogue
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    edited April 14
    The tree is in the North Pole and is key to the nirvana of the flat Earth. It's no longer a tree, the stump turned black.
    Well, ok. But this debate is not about where the tree is now or anything like that. It is about if the Christian God was justified in punishing them. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • I have always liked to rap my brain around Kierkegaard's thoughts on the events of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit.  While this is not Kierkegaard's direct writings, I though some commentary on his writings would be easier to digest.  

    Fear and Nothingness

     Original sin, the Fall of the first man, as the result of fear of Nothingness, is the basic concept of the book by Kierkegaard mentioned above. We must suppose that this is the most precious, most necessary, most sacred, most deeply felt idea in his extraordinary spiritual experience. And yet, in the words which I have just cited, he expresses this idea inadequately. He says: "The great mystery of innocence lies in this: that it is, at the same time, fear." If he had heard someone else say that, he would probably have felt uneasy and called to mind all the things he had said about theoretical philosophy and the objective truth acquired by theoretical philosophy. "Innocence is, at the same time, fear." Who gives us the right thus to expose the great mystery of innocence? This is not to be found in the Bible, just as one cannot find there even the slightest hint of the idea that man in the state of innocence is limited, not spiritually, but mentally. Kierkegaard could have learned all this, I repeat, either from the Gnostics, who took over both the gnoseological ideas of the Greek philosophers and their axiology, and, accordingly, drew a contrast between the spiritual condition of man and the mental, the latter being considered superior; or he could have learned it from thinkers contemporary to him who had yielded to Gnostic influences. At any rate, we are hardly likely to "know" anything about the state of innocence, even in a general way. Kierkegaard's approach to the Fall includes his own personal experience, but in his experience of the sinful man, there could not be any data that would enable him to draw conclusions about the innocent man, i.e., the man who has not sinned. And least of all had he the right to express the opinion that "innocence is, at the same time, fear." The most that he had the right to say is that "There was innocence; then suddenly, for an unknown reason, from an unknown place, came fear." But Kierkegaard is afraid of any sort of "credo." Is not this fear of "suddenly" the fear we already know, the fear of Nothingness, which destroyed our forefather, but was not itself destroyed, and a thousand generations later continues to be passed down to us, the remote descendants of Adam?... 

         Kierkegaard insists that the fear felt by the first man must be distinguished from terror, apprehension, and other such states of mind that are always aroused by certain definite causes; this fear is, as he puts it, "the reality of freedom, as the possibility of possibilities." In other words, Adam's fear was not motivated by anything—and yet it seemed insurmountable. Perhaps it would have been better if, instead of defining fear as "the reality of freedom" (we shall see in a moment that, according to Kierkegaard, the most terrible "result" of the Fall was man's loss of his freedom), and as "the possibility of possibilities," Kierkegaard had expressed himself more concretely, that is, had said that the freedom of the innocent man knows no bounds. This would correspond with what he, in complete agreement with the Bible, told us earlier: for God all things are possible; and with what he has further to tell us about fear. It is just as incorrect to find fear in the state of innocence as it is to find the sleep of the mind there. Both the sleep of the mind and fear—according to the Bible—came after the Fall. Therefore the serpent is evidently introduced into the Biblical narrative to serve as an external, but active, principle. The serpent inspired the first man's fear; although a false fear—fear of Nothingness—it was overwhelming and insuperable. And this fear has lulled the human mind to sleep, paralyzed the human will. Kierkegaard takes exception to the serpent, declaring that he cannot associate him with any sort of definite idea. I am not about to dispute the notion that the role of the serpent is "incomprehensible" to our reason. But then, even Kierkegaard himself continually assures us that the persistent desire to "grasp," to "understand" the meaning of the Fall, no matter what, only bears witness to our reluctance to experience the entire depth and significance of the problem that lies therein. In this case, "understanding" not only does not help, it is a hindrance. We have entered the region where the "Absurd" rules with its "suddenly," which ceaselessly flares up and dies down again; every "suddenly," every unexpectedness is the implacable foe of "understanding," and so, too, is the Biblical fiat—for ordinary human thinking it is a deus ex machina which theoretical philosophy quite rightly sees as the beginning of its destruction. [1]

    [1] http://www.angelfire.com/nb/shestov/sk/sk_7.html
  • I personally believe that God was unjustified in punishing them. It is said to have been a test, but I find that doubtful. If God created the test, and he is all knowing, he must have seen the outcome. If this was truly a test, the serpent wouldn't have been placed to test Adam and Eve. For they did not know right or wrong, and therefore could not have used proper judgement.
    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    I have always liked to rap my brain around Kierkegaard's thoughts on the events of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit.  While this is not Kierkegaard's direct writings, I though some commentary on his writings would be easier to digest.  

    Fear and Nothingness

     Original sin, the Fall of the first man, as the result of fear of Nothingness, is the basic concept of the book by Kierkegaard mentioned above. We must suppose that this is the most precious, most necessary, most sacred, most deeply felt idea in his extraordinary spiritual experience. And yet, in the words which I have just cited, he expresses this idea inadequately. He says: "The great mystery of innocence lies in this: that it is, at the same time, fear." If he had heard someone else say that, he would probably have felt uneasy and called to mind all the things he had said about theoretical philosophy and the objective truth acquired by theoretical philosophy. "Innocence is, at the same time, fear." Who gives us the right thus to expose the great mystery of innocence? This is not to be found in the Bible, just as one cannot find there even the slightest hint of the idea that man in the state of innocence is limited, not spiritually, but mentally. Kierkegaard could have learned all this, I repeat, either from the Gnostics, who took over both the gnoseological ideas of the Greek philosophers and their axiology, and, accordingly, drew a contrast between the spiritual condition of man and the mental, the latter being considered superior; or he could have learned it from thinkers contemporary to him who had yielded to Gnostic influences. At any rate, we are hardly likely to "know" anything about the state of innocence, even in a general way. Kierkegaard's approach to the Fall includes his own personal experience, but in his experience of the sinful man, there could not be any data that would enable him to draw conclusions about the innocent man, i.e., the man who has not sinned. And least of all had he the right to express the opinion that "innocence is, at the same time, fear." The most that he had the right to say is that "There was innocence; then suddenly, for an unknown reason, from an unknown place, came fear." But Kierkegaard is afraid of any sort of "credo." Is not this fear of "suddenly" the fear we already know, the fear of Nothingness, which destroyed our forefather, but was not itself destroyed, and a thousand generations later continues to be passed down to us, the remote descendants of Adam?... 

         Kierkegaard insists that the fear felt by the first man must be distinguished from terror, apprehension, and other such states of mind that are always aroused by certain definite causes; this fear is, as he puts it, "the reality of freedom, as the possibility of possibilities." In other words, Adam's fear was not motivated by anything—and yet it seemed insurmountable. Perhaps it would have been better if, instead of defining fear as "the reality of freedom" (we shall see in a moment that, according to Kierkegaard, the most terrible "result" of the Fall was man's loss of his freedom), and as "the possibility of possibilities," Kierkegaard had expressed himself more concretely, that is, had said that the freedom of the innocent man knows no bounds. This would correspond with what he, in complete agreement with the Bible, told us earlier: for God all things are possible; and with what he has further to tell us about fear. It is just as incorrect to find fear in the state of innocence as it is to find the sleep of the mind there. Both the sleep of the mind and fear—according to the Bible—came after the Fall. Therefore the serpent is evidently introduced into the Biblical narrative to serve as an external, but active, principle. The serpent inspired the first man's fear; although a false fear—fear of Nothingness—it was overwhelming and insuperable. And this fear has lulled the human mind to sleep, paralyzed the human will. Kierkegaard takes exception to the serpent, declaring that he cannot associate him with any sort of definite idea. I am not about to dispute the notion that the role of the serpent is "incomprehensible" to our reason. But then, even Kierkegaard himself continually assures us that the persistent desire to "grasp," to "understand" the meaning of the Fall, no matter what, only bears witness to our reluctance to experience the entire depth and significance of the problem that lies therein. In this case, "understanding" not only does not help, it is a hindrance. We have entered the region where the "Absurd" rules with its "suddenly," which ceaselessly flares up and dies down again; every "suddenly," every unexpectedness is the implacable foe of "understanding," and so, too, is the Biblical fiat—for ordinary human thinking it is a deus ex machina which theoretical philosophy quite rightly sees as the beginning of its destruction. [1]

    [1] http://www.angelfire.com/nb/shestov/sk/sk_7.html
    So, how does this prove that it was justified for God to punish them? They did not know it was wrong using Biblical quotes. That entire post was about fear but you never tied it to the topic. 

    Sidenote: In Genesis 3:22, it states, "The man has become like one of us ...". Why does it state "us"? If there is one, why does it say us?
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • edited April 17
    They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat," Genesis 2:17.

    The snake was not lying. God said they would die the same day. Genesis 2:16-18. If they did not know the difference, they would need a deterrent. 

    I will also like to point out that God said "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (qoute from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. This means they would not live forever anyway so the serpent/snake (which was not mentioned to be Satan from my knowledge) was telling the truth (sort of).
    The accounts of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge, I will attempt to answer the questions asked by Pogue succinctly as possible. 

    In Gen 2:16-17  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." [1]

    In contrast to the serpent saying...3.1-3: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die." [2]

    God says they will "surely die" and the serpent says they will "not surely die" So, who is correct here as asked in the premise.  

    We know that in verse 19 we know God says this before casting them out of the garden... "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust, you shall return."  In this statement, God identifies that Adam and Eve will experience physical death some point in their life.  This is something that they would not have experienced in the Garden.  Adam and Eve were eternal whiles in the presents with God in the Garden.

    From Gen 2.16-17 we know that God has forbidden the eating of the tree of knowledge.  By disobeying God, and eating of the fruit Adam & Eve committed the first sin.  To sin is to commit evil against God and God cannot be associated with evil. Sin is also seen as death.

    • Psa 5:4  For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you.
    • Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    The death that God was warning Adam and Eve against was a sin, a spiritual death. When someone dies they are no longer with you.  
    • Isa 59:2  but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

    So when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of good and evil, committed a sin, which resulted in a spiritual death or separation for God and the Garden.  Paul explains this in Romans 5.12-21.

    Death in Adam, Life in Christ

    • Rom 5:12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
    • Rom 5:13  for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
    • Rom 5:14  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
    • Rom 5:15  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
    • Rom 5:16  And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
    • Rom 5:17  For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    • Rom 5:18  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
    • Rom 5:19  For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
    • Rom 5:20  Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
    • Rom 5:21  so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    So, as we can clearly see the death that God warned Adam and Eve about was not physical death but a Spiritual Death.

    The reason God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden is that since they sinned, and if they ate of the Tree of Life in a sinful condition they would have been eternally separated from God. Recall from Isa 59.2 iniquities (sin) is a separating from God. To be a sinner is to be unholy, and God is holy...The same imagery of being unclean and clean.  God cannot be associated with uncleanliness/unholiness. 

    The Serpent:

    • Rev 12.9 Tells us who the serpent is: 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. [4]
    • When Satan told Eve that she surely would NOT DIE, he was telling her a half-truth.  They did suffer a spiritual death, but not a physical death. 
    • We can read of a half-truth in Geniuses 12 right below, the account of Abram and Sarai in Egypt.  We are told Sarai is a very beautiful woman, Abram fears that might be killed so as to take Sarai away from him so he conspires to call her is sister (which is kind of correct, she is his half-sister).  When Abram and Sarai are taken to see princes of Pharaoh, he inquires about Sarai, Abram says she is his sister. So Pharaoh's intent is to add Sarai has his wife, God comes to Pharaoh in a dream and warns Pharaoh what will happen to him if he does not return Sarahi to Abram.  Look at v18-19, by telling a half-truth to Pharaoh, God came to Pharaoh and chastised him, causing Pharaoh to be upset with Abram. So in essence by telling a half Truth, Abram actually told a lie.
    • Same as for Satan telling Eve it was ok to eat of the fruit, that she would surely not die.  He lied, they did die that day.

    Abram and Sarai in Egypt

    11 And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of a beautiful countenance. 12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’, and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”

    14 So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful. 15 The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh’s house. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

    17 But the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? I might have taken her as my wife. Now, therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way.” 20 So Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had. [5]


    On the premise of The snake was not lying. God said they would die the same day. Genesis 2:16-18. If they did not know the difference, they would need a deterrent. 

    • This is a false conclusion, the serpent did tell a lie and illustrated above.  

    On the premise of "I will also like to point out that God said "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. This means they would not live forever anyway so the serpent/snake (which was not mentioned to be Satan from my knowledge) was telling the truth (sort of)." 

    • Again, I proved this statement to be incorrect as well, the serpent was Satan, who and told a half-truth which has the same outcome as a lie, so therefore Satan lied to Eve.
    There is so much more to learn from the account of Adam and Eve, but we will save that for another discussion.



    [1]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:16–17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [2]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1–3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [3] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [4] The New King James Version. (1982). (Re 12:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [5] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 12:11–20). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    Sonofason
  • edited April 17
    @Pogue

    Not much, I just think Kierkegaard' philosophical views are interesting.  I've posted my rebuttal.   As to your question: In Genesis 3:22, it states, "The man has become like one of us ...". Why does it state "us"? If there is one, why does it say us?  Good question sound like a puzzling question.  

    22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” [1]

    • First notice the u in us is capitalized "Us" we see thus of Us during creation, Tower of Babel and few other times.

    Genesis 1:26(NKJV)

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    The use of the plural

    Let us make man in our image is the first command that uses the plural pronouns us and our, and the first time God speaks of himself. The word for God is ’elohim (see verse 1), and this word is plural in form. Elsewhere God speaks of himself using plural pronouns only in Gen 3:22; 11:7; and Isa 6:8. Four explanations have been given for this peculiar usage:

    • (1) God is referring to himself and his heavenly court, as in Job 1:6; 1 Kgs 22:19–20; Psa 89:5
    • (2) The use of the plural is anticipating the Christian idea of the Trinity, a view held by some of the early church Fathers.
    • (3) The plural is used to convey the thought of majesty and dignity.
    • (4) The usage is a “plural of deliberation”; that is, when the speaker is conferring or consulting with himself. For example, in Isa 6:8 the Lord says “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” A similar usage may be in Gen 11:7, “The Lord says, ‘Come, let us go down and there confuse their languages.…’ ”

    Modern interpreters prefer the last explanation. Speiser translates “I will make man in my image,” while njv did the same in an earlier printing but has since returned to the use of the plural.

    The plural usage of Let us and in our may require in some languages that the pronoun forms chosen refer to God (as speaker) and others, with the understanding that the others act together with God. If the use of the plural will create misunderstandings, it is better to translate in the first person singular: “I will now make human beings, and they will be like me.” However, if singular pronouns are used in the translation, it may be advisable to note the plural forms in a footnote.

    Man translates the first occurrence of the Hebrew ’adam, which is singular in form and does not refer to a person by that name. It is a collective noun referring to human beings, people, and is followed by a plural verb, let them have dominion. For a full discussion of the name ’adam and where to translate it as a person’s name, see “Names in Genesis” in “Translating Genesis,” pages and following.

    Image is the first of two words comparing human beings to their creator, the other word being after our likeness. Scholars have argued whether the comparison is to a physical or a spiritual image. No general agreement exists, and there is no clear reason why it should be the one or the other. It is probably both. Without attempting to describe the nature of the comparison, tev says “They will be like us and resemble us.” Some translations reduce the double statement to one; for example, spcl “He will be like us,” and gecl “a being who is like us!” Image is not to be confused with “picture.” The parallel expression after our likeness makes it clear that image is in some sense a resemblance. However, it is recommended that translators not attempt to say more than the text suggests. Therefore a model such as tev is recommended.[2]


    When we consider v. 26, we are faced with two interpretive dilemmas that have historically plagued ancient and modern commentators. First, what or who is the referent of the plural pronouns “let us” and “our image and our likeness”? Second, what is the significance of the terms “image” and “likeness” for understanding the unique place of human life in the divine scheme of creation? In what way can the author claim that mankind corresponds to God? The two issues are interrelated since in order to understand the “image” we must also hold before us the question of its Maker’s identity.

    The plural form of the verb distinguishes “make.” This is the first of four passages in the Old Testament where the plural is found in divine dialogue. Subsequently in Genesis the plural “like one of us” occurs in 3:22, and the plural verb “let us go down” is attested in 11:7. Finally, in Isaiah’s vision of the heavenly throne the prophet hears the divine request, “And who will go for us?” (Isa 6:8).

    Among commentators the plural reference is variously understood: (1) a remnant of polytheistic myth; (2) God’s address to creation, “heavens and earth”; (3) a plural indicating divine honor and majesty; (4) self-deliberation; (5) divine address to a heavenly court of angels; and (6) divine dialogue within the Godhead. It is unlikely when we consider the elevated theology of 1:1–2:3, that any polytheistic element would be tolerated by the author; therefore, the first option can be ruled out. The second option is flatly contradicted by v. 27, where God alone is identified as the Creator. The plural as used to show special reverence (honorific plural) is flawed since the point of the verse is the unique correspondence between God and man, not the majesty of God. The fourth viewpoint considers “Let us make” a plural of self-deliberation, depicting God anthropomorphically as someone in contemplation. This is supported by the change to the singular (“his own image”) in v. 27, which indicates that the figure of “deliberation” is completed. In ancient myths divine deliberation prefaces the creation of humans. Self-deliberation is attested in the Old Testament (e.g., Pss 42:5, 11; 43:5), but there is no attestation that the plural form is used in this way.

    The fifth interpretation regarding a heavenly court of angels is more likely, though not sufficiently convincing. Impressive evidence from the Old Testament and parallels from Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology point to the idea of a heavenly court where plans are made and decisions rendered. Furthermore, some argue that Psalm 8’s commentary on the passage indicates that ʾĕlōhîm refers to angels. A difficulty with this view is the inclusion of angels in the phrase “our image” in 1:26. In what sense is the human being created in the image of angels? Appealing to 6:1–4 only begs the question since it is not clear that the “sons of God” are angels. The overriding problem with this view is that there has been no mention of an angelic court in chap. 1, and the text is clear that mankind is made in God’s image (“his image,” v. 27). More important, the narrative has shown by its theological stance that God has no antecedent partner or source for creation. The sudden introduction of a heavenly court diminishes the force of the presentation. To answer this, some suggest that though he consulted with the heavenly court, God alone created man and hence he alone is the source of the “image.” But such a resolution is odd since it undermines the very contention of the angel view, namely, that God consulted with the heavenly court when in fact the consultation had no appreciable meaning.

    Finally, we consider the traditional contention that the plural refers to a divine plurality. The interpretation proposed by the Church Fathers and perpetuated by the Reformers was an intra-Trinity dialogue. However, this position can only be entertained as a possible “canonical” reading of the text since the first audience could not have understood it in the sense of a trinitarian reference. Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage. This was the essential line of argument among the Reformers, who expanded this thought by appealing to the New Testament for corroboration. Our passage describes the result of God’s creative act by both plural and singular pronouns: the plural possessive “our image” in v. 26 and the singular pronoun “his image” in v. 27. Here the unity and plurality of God are in view. The plural indicates an intradivine conversation, a plurality in the Godhead, between God and his Spirit. By its reference to “the Spirit of God” preparing the “earth” for the creative word (1:2), the narrative permits a coparticipant with God in creation. Moreover, Prov 8:30 speaks of the personified “Wisdom” as God’s coparticipant in creation. The later poets and prophets attribute the source of life to the “Spirit” (e.g., Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37).[3]

    Here is the evidence of the plurality to reference the Godhead

    The New Testament, states in John 1-5:  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.  In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.[4]

    1 Jn 5.6-8:This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.[5]

    My assessment would be the use for the word "Us" is either a divine address to a heavenly court of angels; or divine dialogue within the Godhead has revealed in the New Testament. The last thing it is not a reference to a polytheistic divinity.  







    [1] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:22). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [2] Reyburn, W. D., & Fry, E. M. (1998). A handbook on Genesis (pp. 49–50). New York: United Bible Societies.

    [3] Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, p. 160). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [4]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Jn 1:1–5). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [5]  The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Jn 5:6–8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
  • @with_all_humility Tell the truth, the tree was in north pole.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    Whether or not they knew about it's morality, it was about following a command. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat Do you support blindly following commands without questioning it? That seems unlike you and a hypocritical thing you do to stay Christian.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @with_all_humility Tell the truth, the tree was in north pole.
    No, I don't believe it was the North Pole. lol 
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    Whether or not they knew about it's morality, it was about following a command. 
    But they could not decide if it was right or wrong! They did not know about it because of the way God "made" them.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat," Genesis 2:17.

    The snake was not lying. God said they would die the same day. Genesis 2:16-18. If they did not know the difference, they would need a deterrent. 

    I will also like to point out that God said "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (qoute from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. This means they would not live forever anyway so the serpent/snake (which was not mentioned to be Satan from my knowledge) was telling the truth (sort of).
    The accounts of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge, I will attempt to answer the questions asked by Pogue succinctly as possible. 

    In Gen 2:16-17  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." [1]

    In contrast to the serpent saying...3.1-3: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die." [2]

    God says they will "surely die" and the serpent says they will "not surely die" So, who is correct here as asked in the premise.  

    We know that in verse 19 we know God says this before casting them out of the garden... "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust, you shall return."  In this statement, God identifies that Adam and Eve will experience physical death some point in their life.  This is something that they would not have experienced in the Garden.  Adam and Eve were eternal whiles in the presents with God in the Garden.

    From Gen 2.16-17 we know that God has forbidden the eating of the tree of knowledge.  By disobeying God, and eating of the fruit Adam & Eve committed the first sin.  To sin is to commit evil against God and God cannot be associated with evil. Sin is also seen as death.

    • Psa 5:4  For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you.
    • Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    The death that God was warning Adam and Eve against was a sin, a spiritual death. When someone dies they are no longer with you.  
    • Isa 59:2  but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

    So when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of good and evil, committed a sin, which resulted in a spiritual death or separation for God and the Garden.  Paul explains this in Romans 5.12-21.

    Death in Adam, Life in Christ

    • Rom 5:12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
    • Rom 5:13  for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
    • Rom 5:14  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
    • Rom 5:15  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
    • Rom 5:16  And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
    • Rom 5:17  For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    • Rom 5:18  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
    • Rom 5:19  For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
    • Rom 5:20  Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
    • Rom 5:21  so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    So, as we can clearly see the death that God warned Adam and Eve about was not physical death but a Spiritual Death.

    The reason God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden is that since they sinned, and if they ate of the Tree of Life in a sinful condition they would have been eternally separated from God. Recall from Isa 59.2 iniquities (sin) is a separating from God. To be a sinner is to be unholy, and God is holy...The same imagery of being unclean and clean.  God cannot be associated with uncleanliness/unholiness. 

    The Serpent:

    • Rev 12.9 Tells us who the serpent is: 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. [4]
    • When Satan told Eve that she surely would NOT DIE, he was telling her a half-truth.  They did suffer a spiritual death, but not a physical death. 
    • We can read of a half-truth in Geniuses 12 right below, the account of Abram and Sarai in Egypt.  We are told Sarai is a very beautiful woman, Abram fears that might be killed so as to take Sarai away from him so he conspires to call her is sister (which is kind of correct, she is his half-sister).  When Abram and Sarai are taken to see princes of Pharaoh, he inquires about Sarai, Abram says she is his sister. So Pharaoh's intent is to add Sarai has his wife, God comes to Pharaoh in a dream and warns Pharaoh what will happen to him if he does not return Sarahi to Abram.  Look at v18-19, by telling a half-truth to Pharaoh, God came to Pharaoh and chastised him, causing Pharaoh to be upset with Abram. So in essence by telling a half Truth, Abram actually told a lie.
    • Same as for Satan telling Eve it was ok to eat of the fruit, that she would surely not die.  He lied, they did die that day.

    Abram and Sarai in Egypt

    11 And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of a beautiful countenance. 12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’, and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”

    14 So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful. 15 The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh’s house. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

    17 But the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? I might have taken her as my wife. Now, therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way.” 20 So Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had. [5]


    On the premise of The snake was not lying. God said they would die the same day. Genesis 2:16-18. If they did not know the difference, they would need a deterrent. 

    • This is a false conclusion, the serpent did tell a lie and illustrated above.  

    On the premise of "I will also like to point out that God said "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. This means they would not live forever anyway so the serpent/snake (which was not mentioned to be Satan from my knowledge) was telling the truth (sort of)." 

    • Again, I proved this statement to be incorrect as well, the serpent was Satan, and tell in a half-truth as the same outcome as a lie, so therefore Satan lied to Eve.
    There is so much more to learn from the account of Adam and Eve, but we will save that for another discussion.



    [1]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:16–17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [2]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1–3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [3] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [4] The New King James Version. (1982). (Re 12:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [5] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 12:11–20). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    So, I guess our Bibles say something different. I don't know why. Translation issues I guess. In the "New American Bible", it states that they will die the same day. This is a lie by God and so the serpent saying that they won't die from eating it is a lie. I also infer it to be that they will die from the fruit. So Satan saying they won't die is meant to say that they won't die from eating it. Onto Adam and Eve.

    Adam and Eve did disobey God. I accept that. However, it seems like you ignore my point. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They did not know of "good and evil".Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • edited April 17

    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    Whether or not they knew about it's morality, it was about following a command. 
    In morality there would be the ability of discernment of right from wrong.  Therefore due the innocents of Adam and Eve (like new born children) they did not know morality this is revealed in v25 of chapter two. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Adam and Eve did not have a sense of moral guilt by virtue of their nakedness.  

    This is what I posted some material on Kierkegaard view of the eating of the fruit of good and evil.  Kierkegaard wrote extensively on the subject is credited for having discovered or defined anxiety, in his evaluation of what Adam might have thought prior to the moment of electing to eat of the fruit.  Adam and Eve as near as we can tell only had one prohibition; not to eat of the fruit.  This is what Kierkegaard says Adam's dilemma was the fear of Nothingness.  Because, the knew nothing or other than don't eat.  

    After eating the fruit, we find Adam and Eve are now aware of their nakedness and try and cover themselves.  They also are ashamed and hide from God.  What I find as ironic is the blame shifting that takes place... 
    • Gen 3.11-14:  And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”  And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”  The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” So the Lord God said to the serpent:
    Notice how Adam blames God..."You gave to be with me"
    Then Eve blames the serpent, of course the serpent say nothing, because he knows what he did.  

    I tend to believe if Adam would have taken ownership of his actions and not blamed God, there might have still been a Garden.  However, there are the actions of Cane that are quickly approaching.  

    So, yes it was all about following the commandment of God.




     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:25). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:11–14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts

    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    Whether or not they knew about it's morality, it was about following a command. 
    In morality would be the discernment of write from wrong.  Therefore due the innocents of Adam and Eve (like new born children) they did not know morality this is revealed in v25 of chapter two. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Adam and Eve did not have a sense of moral guilt by virtue of their nakedness.  

    This is what I posted some material on Kierkegaard view of the eating of the fruit of good and evil.  Kierkegaard wrote extensively on the subject is credited for having discovered or defined anxiety, in his evaluation of what Adam might have thought prior to the moment of electing to eat of the fruit.  Adam and Eve as near as we can tell only had one prohibition; not to eat of the fruit.  This is what Kierkegaard says Adam's dilemma was the fear of Nothingness.  Because, the knew nothing or other than don't eat.  

    After eating the fruit, we find Adam and Eve are now aware of their nakedness and try and cover themselves.  They also are ashamed and hide from God.  What I find as ironic is the blame shifting that takes place... 
    • Gen 3.11-14:  And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”  And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”  The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” So the Lord God said to the serpent:
    Notice how Adam blames God..."You gave to be with me"
    Then Eve blames the serpent, of course the serpent say nothing, because he knows what he did.  

    I tend to believe if Adam would have taken ownership of his actions and not blamed God, there might have still been a Garden.  However, there are the actions of Cane that are quickly approaching.  





     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:25). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:11–14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    Why not blame God? They did not know their actions were wrong. They only knew it when they ate the fruit.They did not know right and wrong because of God. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • NopeNope 336 Pts
    edited April 18
    If people know good from evil and they diced gods actions where evil then by logic gods action were evil.
  • edited April 17
    @Pogue

    "So, I guess our Bibles say something different. I don't know why. Translation issues I guess. In the "New American Bible", it states that they will die the same day. This is a lie by God and so the serpent saying that they won't die from eating it is a lie. I also infer it to be that they will die from the fruit. So Satan saying they won't die is meant to say that they won't die from eating it. Onto Adam and Eve.

    Adam and Eve did disobey God. I accept that. However, it seems like you ignore my point. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They did not know of "good and evil".Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17."



    I looked up the NAB and it stated "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." for Gen 2.17

    Gen 3.4 says, "But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!""

    I don't see a reference to the "same day"; but I do believe it to all the happened simultaneously and therefore would have happened in one day.  The death God spoke of was "Spiritual Death" being cast from the garden which was heaven on earth.  The serpent spoke of a physical death, thus only telling Eve half the truth.
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    @Pogue

    So, I guess our Bibles say something different. I don't know why. Translation issues I guess. In the "New American Bible", it states that they will die the same day. This is a lie by God and so the serpent saying that they won't die from eating it is a lie. I also infer it to be that they will die from the fruit. So Satan saying they won't die is meant to say that they won't die from eating it. Onto Adam and Eve.

    Adam and Eve did disobey God. I accept that. However, it seems like you ignore my point. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They did not know of "good and evil".Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    I looked up the NAB and it stated "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." for Gen 2.17

    Gen 3.4 says, "But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!""

    I don't see a reference to the "same day"; but I do believe it to all the happened simultaneously and therefore would have happened in one day.  The death God spoke of was "Spiritual Death" being cast from the garden which was heaven on earth.  The serpent spoke of a physical death, thus only telling Eve half the truth.
    Ok, fair eough. That means that Satan was still telling the truth because they would not die by eating it. There life wouldn't end. Also, can you please answer my response about them not knowing it was good or bad. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • edited April 17

    Pogue said:

    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    Whether or not they knew about it's morality, it was about following a command. 
    In morality would be the discernment of write from wrong.  Therefore due the innocents of Adam and Eve (like new born children) they did not know morality this is revealed in v25 of chapter two. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Adam and Eve did not have a sense of moral guilt by virtue of their nakedness.  

    This is what I posted some material on Kierkegaard view of the eating of the fruit of good and evil.  Kierkegaard wrote extensively on the subject is credited for having discovered or defined anxiety, in his evaluation of what Adam might have thought prior to the moment of electing to eat of the fruit.  Adam and Eve as near as we can tell only had one prohibition; not to eat of the fruit.  This is what Kierkegaard says Adam's dilemma was the fear of Nothingness.  Because, the knew nothing or other than don't eat.  

    After eating the fruit, we find Adam and Eve are now aware of their nakedness and try and cover themselves.  They also are ashamed and hide from God.  What I find as ironic is the blame shifting that takes place... 
    • Gen 3.11-14:  And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”  And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”  The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” So the Lord God said to the serpent:
    Notice how Adam blames God..."You gave to be with me"
    Then Eve blames the serpent, of course the serpent say nothing, because he knows what he did.  

    I tend to believe if Adam would have taken ownership of his actions and not blamed God, there might have still been a Garden.  However, there are the actions of Cane that are quickly approaching.  





     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:25). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:11–14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    Why not blame God? They did not know their actions were wrong. They only knew it when they ate the fruit.They did not know right and wrong because of God. 
    It is the dilemma of freewill of choice, Adam is a free agent, and made a conscience decision to do what God told him not to do. He desired to know what Eve now knew.  

    As for who is to blame, we'll use some hyperbole to illustrate the point.  

    • Let's say Mr Pogue is a gun maker, he makes Mr. Humility a gun and gives it to him.  
    • In doing so, Mr Pogue tells Mr H. "This is yours to do has you wish, just don't shoot any people."  
    • Mr Humility goes about his way and bumps into Mr Someone234 who ask "What's that you got"...
    • (Mr H) "A gun"...
    • (234) "Cool, show me how it works, point it over there in the crowd of people and pull the trigger"...
    • (Mr H) "But..But..Pogue said not to point and shoot at people"...
    • (Mr 234) "Oh, don't worry about that, nothing will happen."  

    So, Mr H shoots into the crowd and kills someone, Mr Pogue hears the commotion and comes to the scene, where the police are just arriving as well.
    The police ask..."Who killed this person?"

    So, who going to prison?  Mr Pogue the gun maker, Mr 234 the instigator, of Mr Humility the gullible trigger man?  
  • edited April 17
    WokeWhale said:
    I personally believe that God was unjustified in punishing them. It is said to have been a test, but I find that doubtful. If God created the test, and he is all knowing, he must have seen the outcome. If this was truly a test, the serpent wouldn't have been placed to test Adam and Eve. For they did not know right or wrong, and therefore could not have used proper judgement.
    As discussed above, morality had nothing to do with their decision, it was about obeying God's command and God does not setup someone up to be tested.  I'm viewing test, as to entice, as to tempt. James chapter one explains...

    In the book of James, we’re told that God does not tempt anyone with evil, let alone entice a person.  God can have not association with evil, nor cause anyone to do evil.  James concludes that it is through our own thoughts and minds that bring about temptation. So often when the desire for evil things, brings about sin and the one who sins becomes spiritually dead.
    •  Jas 1:13-15:  Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.  Then, when desire has conceivedit gives birth to sinand sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death[1]
    With this being said, He allows us to be tempted, but it is not by His doing.  Pauls states...

    1Cor 10:13  No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

    So, this should serve as proof text that Adam and Eve had the ability to not eat of the fruit.

    [1]The New King James Version. (1982). (Jas 1.13-15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


  • Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    It's clearly not about right or wrong, it's all about following God's command's.  You do not have to know what is correct or not correct in order to follow directions.  Military basic training proves that, as well as does a child have to know that the stove is hot in order know not to touch it...No...But he/she does touch it, they finds out real quick why dad said not to touch.  Same thing with Adam and Eve.  You can read the other post on addressing right from wrong.  

    "God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand"  How do you conclude this...other than conjecture.  Give some evidence, other than reading into the text what you want it to say.

    I already addressed the "Us" and the reason for not allowing them to eat of the tree of live.

  • PoguePogue 519 Pts

    Pogue said:

    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    Whether or not they knew about it's morality, it was about following a command. 
    In morality would be the discernment of write from wrong.  Therefore due the innocents of Adam and Eve (like new born children) they did not know morality this is revealed in v25 of chapter two. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Adam and Eve did not have a sense of moral guilt by virtue of their nakedness.  

    This is what I posted some material on Kierkegaard view of the eating of the fruit of good and evil.  Kierkegaard wrote extensively on the subject is credited for having discovered or defined anxiety, in his evaluation of what Adam might have thought prior to the moment of electing to eat of the fruit.  Adam and Eve as near as we can tell only had one prohibition; not to eat of the fruit.  This is what Kierkegaard says Adam's dilemma was the fear of Nothingness.  Because, the knew nothing or other than don't eat.  

    After eating the fruit, we find Adam and Eve are now aware of their nakedness and try and cover themselves.  They also are ashamed and hide from God.  What I find as ironic is the blame shifting that takes place... 
    • Gen 3.11-14:  And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”  And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”  The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” So the Lord God said to the serpent:
    Notice how Adam blames God..."You gave to be with me"
    Then Eve blames the serpent, of course the serpent say nothing, because he knows what he did.  

    I tend to believe if Adam would have taken ownership of his actions and not blamed God, there might have still been a Garden.  However, there are the actions of Cane that are quickly approaching.  





     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 2:25). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

     The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:11–14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    Why not blame God? They did not know their actions were wrong. They only knew it when they ate the fruit.They did not know right and wrong because of God. 
    It is the dilemma of freewill of choice, Adam is a free agent, and made a conscience decision to do what God told him not to do. He desired to know what Eve now knew.  

    As for who is to blame, we'll use some hyperbole to illustrate the point.  

    • Let's say Mr Pogue is a gun maker, he makes Mr. Humility a gun and gives it to him.  
    • In doing so, Mr Pogue tells Mr H. "This is yours to do has you wish, just don't shoot any people."  
    • Mr Humility goes about his way and bumps into Mr Someone234 who ask "What's that you got"...
    • (Mr H) "A gun"...
    • (234) "Cool, show me how it works, point it over there in the crowd of people and pull the trigger"...
    • (Mr H) "But..But..Pogue said not to point and shoot at people"...
    • (Mr 234) "Oh, don't worry about that, nothing will happen."  

    So, Mr H shoots into the crowd and kills someone, Mr Pogue hears the commotion and comes to the scene, where the police are just arriving as well.
    The police ask..."Who killed this person?"

    So, who going to prison?  Mr Pogue the gun maker, Mr 234 the instigator, of Mr Humility the gullible trigger man?  
    There is one big difference between your analogy and the story of Adam and Eve. It is that assuming you are like a human, you know right and wrong. Adam and Eve did not. They did not know it was wrong. Once they ate the fruit, they knew it was wrong. 

    WokeWhale said:
    I personally believe that God was unjustified in punishing them. It is said to have been a test, but I find that doubtful. If God created the test, and he is all knowing, he must have seen the outcome. If this was truly a test, the serpent wouldn't have been placed to test Adam and Eve. For they did not know right or wrong, and therefore could not have used proper judgement.
    As discussed above, morality had nothing to do with their decision, it was about obeying God's command and God does not setup someone up to be tested.  I'm viewing test, as to entice, as to tempt. James chapter one explains...

    In the book of James, we’re told that God does not tempt anyone with evil, let alone entice a person.  God can have not association with evil, nor cause anyone to do evil.  James concludes that it is through our own thoughts and minds that bring about temptation. So often when the desire for evil things, brings about sin and the one who sins becomes spiritually dead.
    •  Jas 1:13-15:  Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.  Then, when desire has conceivedit gives birth to sinand sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death[1]
    With this being said, He allows us to be tempted, but it is not by His doing.  Pauls states...

    1Cor 10:13  No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

    So, this should serve as proof text that Adam and Eve had the ability to not eat of the fruit.

    [1]The New King James Version. (1982). (Jas 1.13-15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    They had the ability not to. However, they did not know it was wrong. God "made" us temptable. He "made" us the way we are. That is a way he does it. He could have made us not have that urge. However, God did tempt people. Genesis 22:1, 2 Samuel 24:1, Jeremiah 20:7, and in Matthew 6:13. Hi argument is if God's omnipotent, he would have known they would have done this. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue

    There is one big difference between your analogy and the story of Adam and Eve. It is that assuming you are like a human, you know right and wrong. Adam and Eve did not. They did not know it was wrong. Once they ate the fruit, they knew it was wrong. 

    No, my scenario had nothing to do with knowing right from wrong, you are reading that into it.  I just change the characters and scenery.  For all we know, I did not know what a gun was or could do.  

    So, who goes to jail...according to your logic...you should be going.  
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts

    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    It was a test of faith, sorta. God warned them not to take part of the tree. That they could feast on all the other fruits but that one.
    But by God's design, they did not know it was wrong.

    It was wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (quote from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. I will also like to point out "us". Does this mean there are more? 
    It's clearly not about right or wrong, it's all about following God's command's.  You do not have to know what is correct or not correct in order to follow directions.  Military basic training proves that, as well as does a child have to know that the stove is hot in order know not to touch it...No...But he/she does touch it, they finds out real quick why dad said not to touch.  Same thing with Adam and Eve.  You can read the other post on addressing right from wrong.  

    "God even lied to them. He said that you will die if you eat the fruit. However, they were not immortal beforehand"  How do you conclude this...other than conjecture.  Give some evidence, other than reading into the text what you want it to say.

    I already addressed the "Us" and the reason for not allowing them to eat of the tree of live.

    It was God's design that made them do it. He made them he gullible. He made them not know it was wrong to do. In the military (you brought it up), they know not following orders is wrong. However, by God's design, they didn't. 

    Have a good day. I have no more time to debate. Bye!
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • God "made" us temptable. He "made" us the way we are. That is a way he does it. He could have made us not have that urge. However, God did tempt people. Genesis 22:1, 2 Samuel 24:1, Jeremiah 20:7, and in Matthew 6:13. Hi argument is if God's omnipotent, he would have known they would have done this. 

    What do you think, made in his image means?  He gave us the same ability to make decisions and to rule over our lives, just as the angles are free moral agents as well.  That's why Satan rebelled against God, he felt he was a powerful and capable as God was.  

    It is evident that God did not want robots, it's just like man's quest for AI, we are not satisfied with telling a computer what to do, we what to see it think for itself.  

    Just because God can know, does not me he choses to know...Where would the satisfaction be in that?  God has emotions, just like us.
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    @Pogue

    There is one big difference between your analogy and the story of Adam and Eve. It is that assuming you are like a human, you know right and wrong. Adam and Eve did not. They did not know it was wrong. Once they ate the fruit, they knew it was wrong. 

    No, my scenario had nothing to do with knowing right from wrong, you are reading that into it.  I just change the characters and scenery.  For all we know, I did not know what a gun was or could do.  

    So, who goes to jail...according to your logic...you should be going.  
    Well, if you did not know what a gun was or could do, I shouldn't have given you a gun. If you did not know right and wrong. You shouldn't of had it. If that is the case, I should be in jail.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue
    It was God's design that made them do it. He made them he gullible. He made them not know it was wrong to do. In the military (you brought it up), they know not following orders is wrong. However, by God's design, they didn't. 

    Have a good day. I have no more time to debate. Bye!

    You miss the point on the scenario, so answer the hot stove question.   :*

    Better bring your A game tomorrow.   :triumph:
  • @Pogue

    Well, if you did not know what a gun was or could do, I shouldn't have given you a gun. If you did not know right and wrong. You shouldn't of had it. If that is the case, I should be in jail.

    At least you're consistent...wrong but consistent,  Ezekiel 18 explains how sin works and who is responsible.  

    Ezekiel 18
    Who's Responsible for Who's Sins

     In the Old Testament (OT) we can get an understanding of how God works and deals with evil, wickedness, and sin.  The three are the same.  In a vision, God had delivered a message to Ezekiel and he was to go and warn Israel, we find….

    •  In Eze 18:4-6:  "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is just and does what is lawful and right; If he has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor's wife, nor approached a woman during her impurity;[1]

     Ezekiel list some evil things that the Israelites had been doing, worshipping false gods, sleeping with other men’s lives.  In verses 7-8 he starts contrasting wicked deeds with good deeds. Then he reveals why he is telling of these things.

     Eze 18.8b-9: But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity and executed true judgment between man and man; If he has walked in My statutes—And kept My judgments faithfully—He is just; He shall surely live!" Says the Lord GOD. [1]

     God has sent a message warning Israel to stop doing evil things and start doing that which was commanded in the Law of Moses that they would live. Then he continues in verse 10 to tell of men who have sons who do wicked deeds, even though the son's father never done such deeds.

    •  Eze 18.10-11a:  "If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things, (though he himself did none of these things) … v13:  lends at interest, and takes a profit; shall he then liveHe shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself. [1]

    Ezekiel now identifies why Israel was becoming wick. Although the fathers of the children knew what to do to keep God’s laws they did not disciple their children and their children departed from the law of God and began behaving like the wicked nations around them.  But notice God is going to hold the fathers responsible for their son’s actions.  Next, we see how God views when the father does evil and the son does not.

    •  Eze 18.14:  "Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees and does not do likewise: … v17 withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father's iniquityhe shall surely live.[1]

    In verse 14-17 we find out that while a father will be held responsible for how he raises his son. But the son is not responsible for the wickedness of his parents and God will not punish him.  Now, during the time of the time of the OT, the punishment for disobedience was physical punishment.  This was done so that mankind would know that God was serious about keeping His law.  

    •  In verses 21-23…The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffers for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.  None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done, he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? [2]

    In verse 21-23 we find out an important attribute of God. He only punishes those who commit the evil or wickedness. However, if a person stops being wicked and obeys God’s laws, God will forgive them, and they will not suffer punishment.  In v23 Ezekiel ask a rhetorical question, because he knows people will accuse God of being mean and wicked (Sound familiar, have any of you made such claims) but it is evident that God want’s mankind to live (spiritually) and for the people of the time as well God did not want to punish Israel by allowing them to be put into captivity.  At the end of the chapter, we find that God makes a final plea through Ezekiel, for Israel (mankind) to stop doing evil, sinful deeds and just turn to God. Because God does not want to see anyone die, there is no pleasure in it. However, God has standards/laws and He has to punish those who break them.   

    • Eze 18.31-32:  Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?  For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so, turn, and live." [2]

    Eze 18.32 tells us God had not pleasure in casting Adam and Eve out of Eden.  God will forgive man as long as man stops doing corrupt and wicked things and does what God ask of him/her.  Then mankind will not die but have everlasting life.



    [1]The New King James Version. (1982). (Eze 18.1-23). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [2]The New King James Version. (1982). (Eze 18.21-32). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    @Erfisflat Do you support blindly following commands without questioning it? That seems unlike you and a hypocritical thing you do to stay Christian.
    That's the second time you've falsely asserted me of being hypocritical. If my maker walked and talked with me as they did, I'd follow his command, like a parent would issue a command. That is not the same thing as doing what this guy says.



    or this guy.


    or this guy.

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Pogue
    Also, can you please answer my response about them not knowing it was good or bad.  I thought I already answered this but just in case I did not.

    As stated earlier, morality, or distinguishing good from bad was not required for Adam and Eve to know that the we're wrong for eating the fruit of Good and Evil.  

    In morality there would be the ability of discernment of right from wrong.  Therefore we can prove the innocents of Adam and Eve (like new born children) they did not know morality this is evident in v25 of chapter two. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Adam and Eve did not have a sense of moral guilt by virtue of their nakedness.  

    I posted some material on Kierkegaard's view of the eating of the fruit of good and evil.  Kierkegaard wrote extensively on the subject of Adam and Eve's sin, so much that he is credited for having discovered or defined what anxiety is, in his evaluation of what Adam might have thought prior to the moment of electing to eat of the fruit.  Adam and Eve as near as we can tell, were given only had one prohibition; not to eat of the fruit.  This is what Kierkegaard says Adam's dilemma was the fear of Nothingness.  Because, they knew nothing or other than don't eat.  They did not comprehend the totality of their actions. If the had, they would have not eaten of the fruit.

    We can prove this with the scenario of the Hot Stove: Does a child have to know that the stove is hot in order know not to touch it...No, you as a parent told them not to touch...But if he/she does touch it, they finds out real quick why dad /mom said not to touch.  Same applies to Adam and Eve. Whether we want to admit it or not, know the consequence of their actions was not required, nor the discernment of right from wrong.

    Just as does a person have to see a someone electrocuted in order to know not to touch a fallen power line?  Did we have to know why you were learning how to math in 1st grade in order to do it? Foreknowledge is not a requirement for everything in life.  Nor was it for Adam and Eve to comprehend why God told them not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

    The necessary conclusion is that it was all about obeying the command of God...No means No

    As pointed out previously 1 Cor 10.13 is prooftext that Adam and Eve were not tempted by Satan beyond their ability to not eat of the fruit.

    1Cor 10:13  No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    edited May 13
    Pogue said:
    I was just going through my Bible and I came across this so I made a debate about it. 

    It wss wrong for God to punish them. They did not know "good and evil". Once they ate it, they knew it was wrong. "4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 'For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5. They did not know about good and evil. They did not know about right and wrong. By God's design, they did not know it was wrong. They were punished because God made them that way. It is because of God that they did it. Even God said it would give them that knowledge. "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,Genesis 2:17.

    The snake was not lying. God said they would die the same day. Genesis 2:16-18. If they did not know the difference, they would need a deterrent. 

    I will also like to point out that God said "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take a fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?" (qoute from the Bible I have) Genesis 3:22. This means they would not live forever anyway so the serpent/snake (which was not mentioned to be Satan from my knowledge) was telling the truth (sort of).


    Good morning @Pogue hopefully I can type here, .. lost a 4 hour response to Royalty, so here it goes.

    Knowing "Good and evil" has nothing to do with their choice in taking of the forbidden fruit when they were warned by God that they should not. Knowing good and evil is experiencing it, like someone said, burning your hand on the stove, and breaking Gods command resulted in shame, another form of knowledge of good and evil. Pain and suffering and eventual death followed their education on "knowing good and evil"! Cain killing Abel further educated them on "good and evil", suffering the loss of a child.

    Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

    Eve sought after wisdom, and thought it would be worth it disobeying God. We do this all the time, like when were young, especially in the teen years, we disobey our parents even though they tell us how much trouble and pain and suffering we can get into disobeying them.
    Smoke cigarettes, drink some booze, do pot, .. do Cocaine, aahh, that ain't so bad, mom and dad just don't want me to experience it, they don't want me to have fun! The heck with them, it looks like fun, don't really taste that bad either, so I want to KNOW for myself whether it's good or evil?

    So was it right for God to punish Adam and Eve?
    Why do cops follow teens, especially on weekends? They punish them for possession of drugs or alcohol even before they took a sip of it, or had the chance to smoke that Marijuana   .. why?
    Could it be because the COPS know the accidents that those drugs, and alcohol could cause? Did they clean up some bad accident sites and know the horrors, the loss of property and even the loss of life that drunkenness, or being high can cause?

    Genesis 22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.

    Who is us?

    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"  
    We know that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, which is Gods son Word, aka Jesus Christ, so it was His son Word God was talking to.

    How does God and His Son Word know good and evil? 
    Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep

    Seems like God and His son Word seen what "knowing good and evil" can do because from those few verses it looks like the world before they put man here ended up in chaos, lifeless, covered in dark water. So just like the COPS with the teens, God knew what disobedience will bring about.
    Limiting their life from eternal to about a thousand years was smart, it limited man from creating more suffering for themselves. God made two more adjustments because man became evil, so a thousand years was way too much to allow evil men to live.

    Genesis 6:And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

    And even that was too long, ..

    Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Pogue and yes, Satan was telling the truth, like me telling children who never burnt their hands on the stove to: "Go ahead, touch it, you will be like your parents knowing good and evil! Don't you want to be wise like your parents?"
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch