LordReed:

You are the one contradicting yourself. I have held from start that Adam had knowledge. You say Adam was senseless yet Adam named the animals abi you don't see this in the Bible:

Genesis 2
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The contradiction I was referring to, was that of the bible. How could he have done all that without the knowledge of good. Again, what's the essence of free will without the knowledge of good will?
The only thing I deduced from that story, was that Adam and Eve were simply setup.

Asking what names Adam used is like asking what language they spoke; lost to the annals of time and so irrelevant at this point.

Good answer, I thought you were gonna say something like lion, etc. I've got that a lot from your fellows.

LordReed:

Adam was capable of naming the animals, was capable of recognizing Eve as being made from his own bones yet you would say he could not understand that God didn't want him to eat the fruit? Or that the consequence already stated was dire?

He did not realize that Eve was made from his rib because he had sense. He was not even awake when God was doing it.

LordReed:

The question is did Adam know that eating the fruit was wrong?

no he only knew he was told not to eat

BodyKiss:

The contradiction I was referring to, was that of the bible. How could he have done all that without the knowledge of good. Again, what's the essence of free will without the knowledge of good will?
The only thing I deduced from that story, was that Adam and Eve were simply setup.


Good answer, I thought you were gonna say something like lion, etc. I've got that a lot from your fellows.

It is not a contradiction when you understand the meaning of the context those words are used. Adam had knowledge, he understood and correctly interpreted God's command and knew that eating the fruit was wrong.

LordReed:

Nope you are the one misreading my words. I have told you there is a difference between the good and evil of the fruit and the good and evil of morality. I have tried to show you that Adam had knowledge and intelligence before the fall. Those are not my words are there in the Bible, I am only attempting to draw you a clearer picture with my own words. You will not deny that Adam named the animals brought to him will you? Neither will you deny that Adam heard and knew God's command not to eat the fruit.



At times it seems you are blaming God for the events. Why punish him? Why a simple command with a deceiver around? If you believe that Adam was incapable of making a choice then God is wicked abi?

I would rather say 'unjust'. An infinite punishment for a finite crime.

hifaif:

He did not realize that Eve was made from his rib because he had sense. He was not even awake when God was doing it.

So how did he know?

LordReed:

So how did he know?

The bible didn't say.

LordReed:

Adam was capable of naming the animals, was capable of recognizing Eve as being made from his own bones yet you would say he could not understand that God didn't want him to eat the fruit? Or that the consequence already stated was dire?

BS, with all due respect.
My daughter was calling me Da at 8 months old, and pretty well understood that her mother and I were the two most important people in her life.
She even knew how to tune the radio and select her liked songs. She even knew how to dial the telephone.
So should I have assumed that she had enough cognitive and Intellectual capacity to make important life decisions?

C'mon. Anyone that cannot discern good and evil, right and wrong, is either an infant or a mentally challenged person. Neither should ever be held eternally responsible.

hifaif:

I would rather say 'unjust'. An infinite punishment for a finite crime.

Okay so this the real reason for this thread to paint God as unjust. You could have stated it from the start. And since to you He is unjust why did you ask for explanation? Have you not already concluded?

plaetton:
BS, with all due respect.
My daughter was calling me Da at 8 months old, and pretty well understood that her mother and I were the two most important people in her life.
She even knew how to tune the radio and select her liked songs. She even knew how to dial the telephone.
So should have assumed that she had enough cognitive and Intellectual capacity to make important life decisions?

C'mon. Anyone that cannot discern good and evil, right and wrong, is either an infant or a mentally challenged person. Neither should ever be held eternally responsible.

That is why I said Adam was not a child and yes he could tell it was good to obey God and wrong to disobey which is why it took the deceiver telling Eve a lie in other to get her to eat it. How many lies did you tell your 8 month old daughter?

hifaif: I don't know if anyone has ever noticed anything while reading this biblical verse:


And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Gen 3: 22.


From the above passage, we are made to understand that man had no knowledge of good and evil before he ate the forbidden fruit. So why was God so angry?

Man clearly didn't know what he was doing (he couldn't differentiate between good and evil).

If man had no knowledge (of good and evil), how could he have responded to the laws of not eating of the fruit?

How can a man who cannot differentiate between good and evil resist temptation?

How can he tell if what his tempter is saying is good or evil since he cannot differentiate one from the other?

The first man (before he sinned) seems more like a robot to me. So why did God make a big deal out of it?

Tagged:

nora544 , DeepSight, infonubia, macof, Seun,
PAGAN9JA, Rossikk, FOLYKAZE, plaetton ,
musKeeto, rinrin23, marieolae, MrsBreezy, datalossvictim1, Vikky014, Missyhorlah, Creamish, Joagbaje, Gombs, OLAADEGBU, torchwave, kevoh, oduduwaboy, alienvirus, Kay17, bluish, PastorKun, musKeeto, malvis, HumbledbYGrace, pesty100, ProphetUdeme, OlaoChi, emmyskies, 2tex, Gorzy1, Delydex, Macelliot, frosbel, bolaino, alexleo, Ishilove, Elantracey, Liveair, Macelliot, jbird, MizMyColi, Dayvhid, Pr0ton, Tallesty1, uzolexis, logicboy01, youngwarlocks, tpia1, BossTdiamonds, mstic, Dolemite.

was angry because man disobey his comand

.the first word God say to man is "you shall not eat from the tree of knowlegd of good and evil" if God did not say this,the freewill will not been put to test,the moment God say this word, man has a little idea not do somthing. Now the first word satan say to man..."has God said you shuld not eat from the tree?" what dos this mean? Satan was giving man the idea to disobey God. This was the actual reply the woman reply to the snake genesis3:2"we may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the tree from the middle" this mean MAN HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL,THE KNOWLEGE BECAME ACTIVE WHEN MAN DO THE DEED

LordReed:

Okay so this the real reason for this thread to paint God as unjust. You could have stated it from the start. And since to you He is unjust why did you ask for explanation? Have you not already concluded?

This thread is independent of that particular view.

LordReed:

That is why I said Adam was not a child and yes he could tell it was good to obey God and wrong to disobey which is why it took the deceiver telling Eve a lie in other to get her to eat it. How many lies did you tell your 8 month old daughter?

But it was the tempter that was truthful. If God knew that the consequences of eating the fruit was eternal, why didn't he tell them so without holding anything back.

You want someone to make a choice but you refuse to say much on the consequences.

hifaif:

This thread is independent of that particular view.

But you stated that God is unjust, punishing a finite crime with infinite punishment.

LordReed:

It is not a contradiction when you understand the meaning of the context those words are used. Adam had knowledge, he understood and correctly interpreted God's command and knew that eating the fruit was wrong.

u will have us believing that one require knowledge to name something and also knowledge to communicate but this have nothing to do with wisdom..... what language do u think dey do speak, what then do u think he will name them, don't u know that even Genesis had never gave the account of the creation precisely

hifaif:

The bible didn't say.

But he got the knowledge?

efedua: u will have us believing that one require knowledge to name something and also knowledge to communicate but this have nothing to do with wisdom..... what language do u think dey do speak, what then do u think he will name them, don't u know that even Genesis had never gave the account of the creation precisely

I don't understand. You don't believe in the Genesis account?

hifaif: I don't know if anyone has ever noticed anything while reading this biblical verse:


And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Gen 3: 22.


From the above passage, we are made to understand that man had no knowledge of good and evil before he ate the forbidden fruit. So why was God so angry?

Man clearly didn't know what he was doing (he couldn't differentiate between good and evil).

If man had no knowledge (of good and evil), how could he have responded to the laws of not eating of the fruit?

How can a man who cannot differentiate between good and evil resist temptation?

How can he tell if what his tempter is saying is good or evil since he cannot differentiate one from the other?

The first man (before he sinned) seems more like a robot to me. So why did God make a big deal out of it?

Tagged:

nora544 , DeepSight, infonubia, macof, Seun,
PAGAN9JA, Rossikk, FOLYKAZE, plaetton ,
musKeeto, rinrin23, marieolae, MrsBreezy, datalossvictim1, Vikky014, Missyhorlah, Creamish, Joagbaje, Gombs, OLAADEGBU, torchwave, kevoh, oduduwaboy, alienvirus, Kay17, bluish, PastorKun, musKeeto, malvis, HumbledbYGrace, pesty100, ProphetUdeme, OlaoChi, emmyskies, 2tex, Gorzy1, Delydex, Macelliot, frosbel, bolaino, alexleo, Ishilove, Elantracey, Liveair, Macelliot, jbird, MizMyColi, Dayvhid, Pr0ton, Tallesty1, uzolexis, logicboy01, youngwarlocks, tpia1, BossTdiamonds, mstic, Dolemite.

was angry because man disobey his comand

.the first word God say to man is "you shall not eat from the tree of knowlegd of good and evil" if God did not say this,the freewill will not been put to test,the moment God say this word, man has a little idea not do somthing. Now the first word satan say to man..."has God said you shuld not eat from the tree?" what dos this mean? Satan was giving man the idea to disobey God. This was the actual reply the woman reply to the snake genesis3:2"we may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the tree from the middle" this mean MAN HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL,THE KNOWLEGE BECAME ACTIVE WHEN MAN DO THE DEED.

hifaif: I don't know if anyone has ever noticed anything while reading this biblical verse:


And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Gen 3: 22.


From the above passage, we are made to understand that man had no knowledge of good and evil before he ate the forbidden fruit. So why was God so angry?

Man clearly didn't know what he was doing (he couldn't differentiate between good and evil).

If man had no knowledge (of good and evil), how could he have responded to the laws of not eating of the fruit?

How can a man who cannot differentiate between good and evil resist temptation?

How can he tell if what his tempter is saying is good or evil since he cannot differentiate one from the other?

The first man (before he sinned) seems more like a robot to me. So why did God make a big deal out of it?

Tagged:

nora544 , DeepSight, infonubia, macof, Seun,
PAGAN9JA, Rossikk, FOLYKAZE, plaetton ,
musKeeto, rinrin23, marieolae, MrsBreezy, datalossvictim1, Vikky014, Missyhorlah, Creamish, Joagbaje, Gombs, OLAADEGBU, torchwave, kevoh, oduduwaboy, alienvirus, Kay17, bluish, PastorKun, musKeeto, malvis, HumbledbYGrace, pesty100, ProphetUdeme, OlaoChi, emmyskies, 2tex, Gorzy1, Delydex, Macelliot, frosbel, bolaino, alexleo, Ishilove, Elantracey, Liveair, Macelliot, jbird, MizMyColi, Dayvhid, Pr0ton, Tallesty1, uzolexis, logicboy01, youngwarlocks, tpia1, BossTdiamonds, mstic, Dolemite.

God was angry because man disobey his comand

.the first word God say to man is "you shall not eat from the tree of knowlegd of good and evil" if God did not say this,the freewill will not been put to test,the moment God say this word, man has a little idea not do somthing. Now the first word satan say to man..."has God said you shuld not eat from the tree?" what dos this mean? Satan was giving man the idea to disobey God. This was the actual reply the woman reply to the snake genesis3:2"we may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the tree from the middle" this mean MAN HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL,THE KNOWLEGE BECAME ACTIVE WHEN MAN DO THE DEED.

malvisguy212: God was angry because man disobey his comand

.the first word God say to man is "you shall not eat from the tree of knowlegd of good and evil" if God did not say this,the freewill will not been put to test,the moment God say this word, man has a little idea not do somthing. Now the first word satan say to man..."has God said you shuld not eat from the tree?" what dos this mean? Satan was giving man the idea to disobey God. This was the actual reply the woman reply to the snake genesis3:2"we may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the tree from the middle" this mean MAN HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL,THE KNOWLEGE BECAME ACTIVE WHEN MAN DO THE DEED.

Their eyes opened when they ate the fruit. Their eyes opening symbolizes the loss of innocence and the beginning of guilt and shame. Before this, they felt and had no shame and no guilt because they couldn't recognize wrongs from right

malvisguy212: God was angry because man disobey his comand

.the first word God say to man is "you shall not eat from the tree of knowlegd of good and evil" if God did not say this,the freewill will not been put to test,the moment God say this word, man has a little idea not do somthing. Now the first word satan say to man..."has God said you shuld not eat from the tree?" what dos this mean? Satan was giving man the idea to disobey God. This was the actual reply the woman reply to the snake genesis3:2"we may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the tree from the middle" this mean MAN HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL,THE KNOWLEGE BECAME ACTIVE WHEN MAN DO THE DEED.

What rubbish is this?
Man had the knowledge of good and evil before he ate the fruit, even though god admonished man not to eat from the the tree lest he should know good and evil?

I love it when you guys reinterpret to contradict.

hifaif:

Their eyes opened when they ate the fruit. Their eyes opening symbolizes the loss of innocence and the beginning of guilt and shame. Before this, they felt and had no shame and no guilt because they couldn't recognize wrongs from right

If like toddlers they could not recognize wrongs from right, they how and why are they held eternally responsible?

hifaif:

But it was the tempter that was truthful. If God knew that the consequences of eating the fruit was eternal, why didn't he tell them so without holding anything back.

You want someone to make a choice but you refuse to say much on the consequences.

The first statement to Eve in other to deceive her is "You will not die" a clear contradiction of what God said. In other words he has removed the consequence from her thinking and then brings up a tantalising reward. It was both true and a lie. Yes they will be "independent" like God but he did not tell them that they won't really be gods. It is like someone advertising junk food, he tells you "oh its quite filling" but neglects to tell you that it will fill your belly with poison. Is that being truthful to you?

On saying that God did not elaborate on the consequences that is wrong. He clearly told them "You will die" they don't need to taste death before they know it is not good. The concept meaning was clearly transferred from God to them or else the deceiver would not have used it as his opening gambit. If Eve did not know what is to die why would the deceiver say to her "You will not die"?

plaetton:

If like toddlers they could not recognize wrongs from right, they how and why are they held eternally responsible?

That is why I said there is nothing like original sin. Adam and Eve knew right from wrong. Toddlers don't. Adam and Eve were not toddlers.

LordReed:

The first statement to Eve in other to deceive her is "You will not die" a clear contradiction of what God said. In other words he has removed the consequence from her thinking and then brings up a tantalising reward. It was both true and a lie. Yes they will be "independent" like God but he did not tell them that they won't really be gods. It is like someone advertising junk food, he tells you "oh its quite filling" but neglects to tell you that it will fill your belly with poison. Is that being truthful to you?

On saying that God did not elaborate on the consequences that is wrong. He clearly told them "You will die" they don't need to taste death before they know it is not good. The concept meaning was clearly transferred from God to them or else the deceiver would not have used it as his opening gambit. If Eve did not know what is to die why would the deceiver say to her "You will not die"?

He said they would be like God exactly the same way God said man had become like one of them. Where is the lie?

LordReed:

That is why I said Adam was not a child and yes he could tell it was good to obey God and wrong to disobey which is why it took the deceiver telling Eve a lie in other to get her to eat it. How many lies did you tell your 8 month old daughter?

If Adam had not had enough life experiences to discern good and evil, then Adam was a child, a toddler to life.

Btw, who was the liar and deceiver? Evidently god. Not so?

We tell our infants plenty of lies, example, "the monster is gonna get you if you do this or do that", or,
"Santa clause is not bringing you this or that present if you do this or don't do that". etc, etc.

hifaif:

He said they would be like God exactly the same way God said man had become like one of them. Where is the lie?

I didn't say that was a lie. I asked you if leaving out the sad consequences was to you the truth.

LordReed:

That is why I said there is nothing like original sin. Adam and Eve knew right from wrong. Toddlers don't. Adam and Eve were not toddlers.

If they had free will, then they were never created to live forever in the first place. How would they make good choices all the time forever and ever if they weren't perfect? But yet the Bible made it look like they were originally created to live forever.

LordReed:

That is why I said there is nothing like original sin. Adam and Eve knew right from wrong. Toddlers don't. Adam and Eve were not toddlers.

I don't get you.
The bible clearly says that they did not know good from evil, and here you are, saying that they did.
Are you repudiating the words of your bible?

I really don't get you guys and how you are quick to repudiate and attempt to rewrite any part of the bible that contradict your arguments at any given time.

Religion is something else sha.

plaetton:

If like toddlers they could not recognize wrongs from right, they how and why are they held eternally responsible?

Same question I asked LordReed.

LordReed:

But you stated that God is unjust, punishing a finite crime with infinite punishment.

God can never be unjust only us can err in our knowledge and think he is,,,,, man was one the being God so treasure both in heaven and earth he was pleased to call man gods..... it is God's will that man should fall for wisdom to abound in man but nevertheless he made it in a way that he be counted just of it even though he had set a way to redeem man from the foundation of the earth....wasn't Judas lose for redemption of all, who then would be blamed, perhaps he was with wisdom. God set man not to a test but gave him up to temptation, so then y say u that man has knowledge of good and evil, maybe u mistaken it for the brain

plaetton:

If Adam had not had enough life experiences to discern good and evil, then Adam was a child, a toddler to life.

Btw, who was the liar and deceiver? Evidently god. Not so?

We tell our infants plenty of lies, example, "the monster is gonna get you if you do this or do that", or,
"Santa clause is not bringing you this or that present if you do this or don't do that". etc, etc.

The concept of monster or Santa Claus has to be transferred to your child first before any of them holds which means your child knows monster even if he has never seen one of felt one in real life. Eve knew what death was or the deceiver could not have used it as a ploy. Can you tempt a child with no concept of Santa Claus?

God did not lie, He told them clearly this is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil don't eat it because you will die. He clearly states what effect eating the fruit gives - knowledge and the consequence of eating - death.